Joseph Smith's changing doctrine of deity

[TheosisM]

Behold, the virgin which thou seest is the mother of THE SON OF God...(1 Nephi 11:18).

And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the SON OF THE everlasting God…(1 Nephi 11:32).

From a Catholic perspective, are these verses (sans the capitalized words) really examples of modalism? Calling the virgin [Mary] the “mother of God” isn’t an example of modalism, unless one comes from an Evangelical perspective, which typically [erroneously] denounces that phrase as implying that Mary give birth to the entire Trinity. Also, we know that in the Bible, while “God” can refer to the Father alone, it is also used to refer to the Son (John 1:1) without saying that He is the same Person as the Father (at least in traditional interpretation). So, I just don’t see how 1 Nephi 11:18, without “the son of” is an example of modalism, especially when the same phrase, “mother of God”, is used in Catholicism, without any modalistic implications.

Interestingly, the Title Page retains a similar title to “everlasting God”, “Eternal God”.

Also, referring to the Son as the “Eternal Father” reminds me of Isaiah 9:6-“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”(KJV). The NAB renders it (in verse 5, not 6)-“Father-Forever”. Of course, this doesn’t mean that the Son is the Father (I believe Oneness Pentecostals interpret it in that way). The NAB commentary defines this title as “ever devoted to his people”.

Just some thoughts.

 

[dianaiad]

Wow, a “vain” attempt? What is vain about telling the truth as I see it?

Have you never done anything sincerely…and yet have it be in vain? If so, you are unique among humans. I didn’t make that comment about your remarks being a vain attempt, but I do see that they were addressing your remarks and thier results, not you personally.

Hang in there; while this forum is much more polite than most, you will get your fair share of personal insults. Hold your indignation for those.

By the way…if many LDS equate the concept of the Trinity with modalism, it’s in large part because those Christians who attempt to explain it to us are, more often than not, SAYING ‘Trinity,’ but are actually talking about modalism. As to your claim regarding the Book of Mormon change in these particular verses…given that they were made BY Joseph Smith in order to clarify the meaning, what’s your problem with it? As the translator of the book, he had the absolute right and obligation to do just that, when he saw something that wasn’t correctly translated and needed fixing. Your comment about Joseph saying that it was ‘the most correct book.’ is true; he did say that. Please note, though; he didn’t say that it was absolutely correct and infallible. He said that it was the ‘most correct.’

Comparatives and superlatives are all about how things stand in relation to one another, not about uniqueness. Being the 'most correct book" compared to all other books still does not indicate perfection…and we do not claim perfection for the Book of Mormon. We never have. THAT, by the way, is actually noted on the title page.

 

[TheosisM]

TheosisM;6576032:

Thank you for the explanation. (It may seem clear to you, but not to me!) I have been plodding my way through books about the early church fathers and wish I had a professor to guide me!
The little bit that I have read about Justin Martyr seems to indicate that he was possibly influenced by great philosophers and that he may not have been “open” to Jewish teachings. From what I have read, it doesn’t appear that he would look for the Hebrew translation showing “gods to be judges,” etc. but I could be wrong.

You are right regarding the CCC and men becoming gods. I never really paid attention to the wording because it has never held that meaning for me. Thanks for pointing it out!

No problem! I haven’t really studied the history of the “judges” interpretation, though I’m aware of what some modern non-LDS Biblical scholars think about it, especially in relation to Psalm 82. It would be interesting to learn about when the “judges” interpretation came around in Judaism. I think that for churches that maintain the patristic teaching of theosis (which is pretty much lost in Protestantism), interpreting Psalm 82 in the way that Justin Martyr did is okay.

 

[lax16]

Hi campeador,

What do you believe the Urim and Thummim were in OT times? Can you accept the credibility of one who uses a Urim and Thummim to divine the word of God?

1 Sam. 28:6
“6 And when Saul enquired of the Lord, the Lord answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.”

Exodus 28:30
“30 And thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim; and they shall be upon Aaron’s heart, when he goeth in before the Lord: and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the Lord continually.”

Lev 8:8
“8 And he put the breastplate upon him: also he put in the breastplate the Urim and the Thummim.”

Num 27:21
“21 And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall ask counsel for him after the judgment of Urim before the Lord: at his word shall they go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he, and all the children of Israel with him, even all the congregation.”

Deut 33:8
“8 And of Levi he said, Let thy Thummim and thy Urim be with thy holy one, whom thou didst prove at Massah, and with whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah;”

Rev. 2:17
“17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.”

If you read the OT you will find that Aaron and the priests of Israel used the Urim and Thummim to obtain direction from the Lord. David and other leaders in Israel would make it a habit of always inquiring with the priest before going to war. The priest would inquire of the Lord through Urim and Thummim. Sometimes they would inquire of the Lord by casting lots. This was completely normal to them and the Lord even instructs it in the OT.
(Read 1 Samuel 14 for one example)

In addition, the OT is full of seers.

1 Samuel 9:9
"9 (Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to enquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the seer: for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer.) "

Isaiah 30:10
“10 Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits:”

What exactly is a seer to you? What do they see? How is Joseph Smith any different than the prophets in the OT?

I have done some reading on the Urim and Thummim and see no connection to the use of these in the OT and Joseph Smith.

The New American Bible says of Ex 28:30:
Urim and Thummim: both the meaning of these Hebrew words and the exact nature of the objects so designated are uncertain. They were apparently lots of some kind which were drawn or cast by the priest to ascertain God’s decision in doubtful matters. Hence, the burse in which they were kept was called “the breastpiece of decision.”

The Jewish websites I accessed gave similar commentary. In the OT/Hebrew Bible, Urim and Thummim were used as a yes/no when asking for God’s direction.

They were not glasses. They were not used for translations.

One Jewish critic asked the question: “If someone was truly a prophet, why would they need to use these?”

 

[T_Hope]

I wrote a paper recently for a theology class on what different religions believed. I had a very difficult time researching Mormon beliefs. Am I correct in saying there is no creed or official statement of belief? Even the Mormon Encyclopedia is not accepted as stating Mormon belief, correct? I had an online discussion with a Mormon missionary and he told me that you determined whether the Mormon teaching you received was “correct” by the way it made you feel–is this true?

I’m not entirely sure how to answer your questions. There are the Articles of Faith which Joseph Smith offered to outline what Mormons believe in, but they are pretty ambiguous and IMO uninformative as to the real essence of belief which you will find discussed - as in this thread about the nature of God.

The “Plan of Salvation” or the “Plan of Happiness” teaches more about basic Mormon doctrine. You can google this and fine information on the Mormon belief in the pre-mortal existence of man, the purpose of man’s life on earth, the “restoration” of the gospel including the B/M and doctrinal materials, the spirit world, etc. Those are the real basics of Mormon doctrine.

As for feeling good - yeah. That missionary was talking about an often quoted missionary “scripture” from the Book of Mormon where Moroni tells everyone to ask God the Father if these things (the Book of Mormon) are true or not and He will manifest the truth of it to you - i.e. you will feel good about it and that will be your answer. Mormons use this formula to find out whether other things are true too. To Mormons the key to conversion is the Book of Mormon and if you get a good feeling about the Book of Mormon then EVERYTHING else is true too because it came from Joseph Smith, as did the Book of Mormon.

While it is true no one can argue with feelings, I can pray (in thanks) to God for terrific literature like the moral tales contained in the first two books of the 12-volume set of the History of Middle Earth by Tolkien (in which the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings are just a part, btw) and get a good feeling, but Tolkien never claimed to be writing scripture.

Wow. I don’t know how I would have approached the topic of what other religions believe from a purely unemotional standpoint. What did you do?

Hope

 

[az_4_faith]

AZ,

I don’t have much time now, but this article addresses your questions.

fairlds.org/pubs/ApostasyRestoration.pdf

Sorry, but that’s a document seen only through the prism of the Mormon faith, based solely on a Mormon perspective/interpretation.

 

[Tmaque]

From a Catholic perspective, are these verses (sans the capitalized words) really examples of modalism? Calling the virgin [Mary] the “mother of God” isn’t an example of modalism, unless one comes from an Evangelical perspective, which typically [erroneously] denounces that phrase as implying that Mary give birth to the entire Trinity. Also, we know that in the Bible, while “God” can refer to the Father alone, it is also used to refer to the Son (John 1:1) without saying that He is the same Person as the Father (at least in traditional interpretation). So, I just don’t see how 1 Nephi 11:18, without “the son of” is an example of modalism, especially when the same phrase, “mother of God”, is used in Catholicism, without any modalistic implications.

Interestingly, the Title Page retains a similar title to “everlasting God”, “Eternal God”.

Also, referring to the Son as the “Eternal Father” reminds me of Isaiah 9:6-“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”(KJV). The NAB renders it (in verse 5, not 6)-“Father-Forever”. Of course, this doesn’t mean that the Son is the Father (I believe Oneness Pentecostals interpret it in that way). The NAB commentary defines this title as “ever devoted to his people”.

Just some thoughts.

There’s also this from the Book of Mormon:
Mosiah 15
1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father,** being the Father and the Son**—
3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—
4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

As far as I’m concerned that’s modalism.

 

[Javl]

There’s also this from the Book of Mormon:
Mosiah 15
1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father,** being the Father and the Son**—
3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—
4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

As far as I’m concerned that’s modalism.

Yes, I most certainly agree that it is modalism. It can not be anything else but modalism.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[evanfaust]

Yes, I most certainly agree that it is modalism. It can not be anything else but modalism.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

This article answers the question: “Does the Book of Mormon Teach Mainstream Trinitarianism or Modalism?”

fairlds.org/pubs/BoMTrin.pdf

 

[evanfaust]

Sorry, but that’s a document seen only through the prism of the Mormon faith, based solely on a Mormon perspective/interpretation.

Not solely on a Mormon perpective/interpretation as you said…In support of our view we quoted The Bible, Pastor of Hermas, 2 Clement, definitiion of Greek terms, Tertullian, Michael M. Winter…former lecturer in Fundamental Theology at St. John’s Seminary (Roman Catholic, early Christian literature.

Basic argument:

1 - Church means Assembly
2 - The term Church is much broader and inclusive than an “earthly organization”
3 - The Church belongs not only to the present, but existed from the beginning
4 - Church is not just an earthly organizaiton, but existed before the foundation of the world
5 - The Church existed among the Saint in all ages.
6 - Jesus did not refer to the Church primarily as an earthly organization
7 - Gates of Hell = Hades = World of the dead
8 - Christ broke the Gates of Hell. Ample evidence from the early Christian literature

Therefore, even if the Church as an earthly organization disappears and reappears periodically, the church will always survive!

This is what Michael M. Winter says: “although some writers have applied the idea of immortality to the survival of the church, it seems preferable to see it as promise of triumph over evil.”

 

[mmsiciliana]

Wow. I don’t know how I would have approached the topic of what other religions believe from a purely unemotional standpoint. What did you do?

Hope

I wrote:

Today, it would seem that the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as “Mormons”, subscribe to a form of the heresy of adoptionism. (Adoptionism is the belief that Jesus became divine at some point in time.) It is very difficult to find any absolute statements of doctrine for the LDS ecclesial community. They have no creed or catechism, and a later LDS “prophet” can change what earlier an earlier LDS “prophet” or “prophets” taught. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism was printed in 1992, but its editor writes:
Those who have written and edited [the Encyclopedia of Mormonism] have only tried to explain their understanding of Church history, doctrines, and procedures; their statements and opinions remain their own. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism is a joint product of Brigham Young University and Macmillan Publishing Company, and its contents do not necessarily represent the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Ludlow).

That being said, it seems to be the consensus that Jesus is the firstborn “spirit child” of God the Father, and all human beings also lived in heaven as spirit children of God the Father before their births here on earth since at least two contributors to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism say:
In the premortal life, Jesus Christ, whose main title was Jehovah, was the firstborn spirit child of God the Father and thus the eldest brother and preeminent above all other spirit children of God (Millet).

and

Fundamental to the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the concept that all human beings were born as spirit sons and daughters of heavenly parents before any were born as mortals to earthly parents. Latter-day Saints believe that the eldest and firstborn spirit child of God is Jehovah and that it was he who was later born with a physical body to mary [sic] as Jesus Christ. That is, Jehovah of the Old Testament became Jesus Christ of the New Testament when he was born into mortality. The Psalmist refers to the Messiah as the firstborn (Ps. 89:27), and the apostle Paul speaks of Jesus as the “firstborn among many brethren” (Rom. 8:29; cf. Heb. 2:17) and as the “firstborn of every creature” (Col. 1:15). Perhaps the most authoritative statement on the subject is from the Savior himself, who declared to the Prophet Joseph Smith, “I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn” (D&C 93:21). In 1909 the First Presidency of the Church declared: The Father of Jesus is our Father also. Jesus Himself taught this truth, when He instructed His disciples how to pray: “Our Father which art in heaven,” etc. Jesus, however, is the firstborn among all the sons of God—the first begotten in the spirit, and the only begotten in the flesh. He is our elder brother, and we, like Him, are in the image of God. All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity [MFP 4:203] [Citations in the original] (Giles).

So, according to Mormon belief, all human beings, including Jesus, began their lives as “spirit children” in heaven. Jesus Christ is the eldest and firstborn spirit child of God. So, what is it that makes him different from other human beings? How did he become divine? Unlike the rest of the members of the human race who have two human parents, God the Father is literally Jesus’ earthly father as well as being his heavenly father:
Ancient and modern scriptures use the title Only Begotten to emphasize the divine nature of Jesus Christ. Latter-day Saints recognize Jesus as literally the Only Begotten Son of God the Father in the flesh (John 3:16; D&C 93:11; Moses 6:52). This title signifies that Jesus’ physical body was the offspring of a mortal mother and of the eternal Father (Luke 1:35, 1Ne. 11:18). It is LDS doctrine that Jesus Christ is the child of mary [sic] and God the Father, “not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof” (JC, p. 81).
The fact of Jesus’ being the literal Son of God in the flesh is crucial to the Atonement, which could not have been accomplished by an ordinary man. Because of the Fall of Adam, all mankind are subject to physical death and are shut out from the presence of God. The human family is unable to save itself. Divine law required the sacrifice of a sinless, infinite, and eternal being—a God (This is huge…an eternal being would be a being who had no beginning and no end, yet the Mormon belief is that Jesus had a beginning as a “spirit child”) —someone not dominated by the Fall, to redeem mankind from their lost and fallen condition (Alma 34:9-14; cf. 42:15). This price of redemption was more than any mortal person could pay, and included the spiritual sufferings and physical agony in Gethsemane (Luke 22:44; Mosiah 3:7; D&C 19:18). To complete the Atonement by physical death and resurrection, it was necessary that Jesus be able to lay down his physical body and also be able to take it up again. He could do this only because he had life in himself, which he inherited from God his Father (John 5:26;10:17-18). Christ inherited the ability to die from his mortal mother and the power to resurrect himself from his immortal Father. Dying was for him a voluntary, deliberate act for mankind, made possible only because he was the Only Begotten of the Father (D&C 20:18-26) [Citations in the original] (Hansen).

So, according to Mormon belief, it would seem Jesus became divine only at his conception in a physical body.

 

[mmsiciliana]

I also wrote:

Another interesting belief of the Mormons is that Jesus and Satan were spirit children brothers. It follows, therefore, that since Mormons believe we are all spirit children of the Father, Mormons believe that Satan is our spirit brother as well:
The Council in Heaven, sometimes called the Grand Council, refers to a meeting of God the Father with his spirit sons and daughters to discuss the terms and conditions by which these spirits could come to earth as physical beings. The terms “Council in Heaven” and “Grand Council” do not appear in the scriptures, but are used by the Prophet Joseph Smith in referring to these premortal activities, allusions to which are found in many scriptures (Job 38:4-7; Jer. 1:5; Rev. 12:3-7; Alma 13:3-9; D&C 29:36-38;76:25-29; Moses 4:1-4; Abr. 3:23-28; cf. Tpjs, pp. 348-49, 357, 365; T&S 4 [Feb. 1, 1843]:82).
One purpose of the heavenly council was to allow the spirits the opportunity to accept or reject the Father’s Plan of Salvation, …The Prophet Joseph Smith explained, “Every man who has a calling to minister to the inhabitants of the world was ordained to that very purpose in the Grand Council of heaven before this world was. I suppose I was ordained to this very office in that Grand Council” (TPJS, p. 365; cf. 1 Pet. 1:20; Jer. 1:5; Abr. 3:22-23).
…At a certain point in the council, the Father asked, “Whom shall I send [as the Redeemer]?” Jesus Christ, known then as the great I AM and as Jehovah, answered, “Here am I, send me,” and agreed to follow the Father’s plan (Moses 4:1-4; Abr. 3:27). As a counter-measure, Lucifer offered himself and an amendment to the Father’s plan of saving mankind that would not respect their agency. The substitute proposal was also designed to exalt Lucifer above the throne of God. The Father’s response was, “I will send the first” (meaning Jehovah). Lucifer rebelled and became Satan, or “the devil.” A division developed among the spirits, and no spirits were neutral (DS 1:65-66). There was war in heaven (Rev. 12:7-8), and the third of the hosts who followed Lucifer were cast out (Rev. 12:4; D&C 29:36). These rebellious spirits, along with Lucifer, were thrust down to the earth without physical bodies (Rev. 12:9; cf. Isa. 14:12-17). The Prophet Joseph Smith explained: “The contention in heaven was—Jesus said there would be certain souls that would not be saved; and the devil said he could save them all, and laid his plans before the grand council, who gave their vote in favor of Jesus Christ. So the devil rose up in rebellion against God, and was cast down, with all who put up their heads for him” (TPJS, p. 357). Heavenly Father and the faithful spirits in heaven wept over them (D&C 76:25-29). [Citations in the original] (Lund).

I find it interesting that the “prophet” Joseph Smith saw his role “ordained” in the Grand Council of heaven, and it is also interesting that the Grand Council “voted” in favor of Jesus over Satan. It seems obvious that Mormonism is very much an American religion.

Besides subscribing to the heresy of adoptionism, Mormons are also modalists. They believe the Lord of the Old Testament, whom they call “Jehovah” and Jesus are one and the same person: “Jesus Christ, known then as the great I AM and as Jehovah, answered, ‘Here am I, send me,’ and agreed to follow the Father’s plan” (Lund) and “Jesus Christ, whose main title was Jehovah, was the firstborn spirit child of God the Father” (Millet).

 

[mmsiciliana]

And finally I wrote:

Still another interesting belief of the Mormons is that they apply the heresy of adoptionism to God the Father, too. God the Father was not always a God. Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, considered himself to be an astute Biblical scholar. When one of his followers, King Follett, was killed in an accident, Smith used the occasion to deliver what would come to be known as the “King Follett Discourse”. In it, he disclosed some of his bizarre teachings while citing the Scripture he used to back up his ideas:
First, God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heaven, is a man like one of you. That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today and you were to see the great God who holds this world in its orbit and upholds all things by his power, you would see him in the image and very form of a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion and image of God. He received instruction from and walked, talked, and conversed with him as one man talks and communes with another.
… I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. [That he was not is an idea] incomprehensible to some. But it is the simple and first principle of the gospel—to know for a certainty the character of God, that we may converse with him as one man with another. God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did, and I will show it from the Bible.
I wish I had the trump of an archangel; I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease forever. What did Jesus say? (Mark it, elder Rigdon!) Jesus said, “As the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power.” To do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible. The scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom, all the combined powers of earth and hell together, to refute it.
Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God. And you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves—to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done—by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.
And I want you to know that in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming his name, God is not trifling with you or me; it is the first principle of consolation. How consoling to the mourner when he is called to part with a husband, wife, father, mother, child, or dear relative, to know that although the earthly tabernacle shall be dissolved that dear one shall rise in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more but shall be God’s heirs and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? It is to inherit the same glory, the same power, and the same exaltation until you ascend the throne of eternal power the same as those who are gone before. What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. I saw my Father work out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom I shall present it to my Father so that he obtains kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt his glory. And so Jesus treads in his tracks to inherit what God did before. It is plain beyond disputation (Smith).

An article in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism explains:
all the children of God are embryonic gods or goddesses. Obedience to the fulness [sic] of the gospel is the perfecting process through which they may go "from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation…until [they] arrive at the station of a God” (Cannon).

Smith claims that God the Father “is a man like one of you”; that He “work[ed] out his kingdom with fear and trembling”; and that human beings can also become gods—that they can “inherit the same glory, the same power, and the same exaltation until [they] ascend the throne of eternal power”. Unfortunately, he neglected to say how the many Scriptures that point to the fact that there is only one God, such as 1 Samuel 2:2, Ezek 39:7, 2 Kings 19:22, Psalm 22:4, etc. figure into his Biblical exegesis.

 

[mmsiciliana]

There’s also this from the Book of Mormon:
Mosiah 15
1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father,** being the Father and the Son**—
3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—
4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

As far as I’m concerned that’s modalism.

Yep. That’s modalism. The doctrine of the Trinity is that there is one God and three distinct persons in the one God. The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit. The Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. Yet, there is only one God. Only the Son became incarnate–only the Son is a Divine Person who has eternally existed but 2000 years ago took on a human nature in addition to His Divine nature, was born to the Virgin Mary and died on the cross. The Father did not die on the cross. The Holy Spirit did not die on the cross.

 

[mmsiciliana]

This article answers the question: “Does the Book of Mormon Teach Mainstream Trinitarianism or Modalism?”

fairlds.org/pubs/BoMTrin.pdf

Basically, this article is nonsense:

For instance, “…modalists have typically been stuck with the scriptures they inherited. On the other hand, Joseph Smith not only produced new scripture, but felt so comfortable in his prophetic calling that he actually revised the Bible! …So why, if the Prophet wished to promote a modalistic theology, did he leave anti-modalistic passages in the Bible unrevised and reinforce those same passages in the Book of Mormon?”

1. What authority has been given to Joseph Smith to “produce” new scripture and/or “revise” the Bible?
2. Doesn’t anyone think it’s odd to read anti-modalistic passages AND modalistic passages in the same “scriptures”?
3. Don’t Mormons find it strange that there are no definitive statements of doctrine and that doctrine can change from one prophet to another? It’s very easy to have a “true” religion if there are no statements of belief that can be examined.

 

[ParkerD]

Basically, this article is nonsense:

For instance, “…modalists have typically been stuck with the scriptures they inherited. On the other hand, Joseph Smith not only produced new scripture, but felt so comfortable in his prophetic calling that he actually revised the Bible! …So why, if the Prophet wished to promote a modalistic theology, did he leave anti-modalistic passages in the Bible unrevised and reinforce those same passages in the Book of Mormon?”

1. What authority has been given to Joseph Smith to “produce” new scripture and/or “revise” the Bible?
2. Doesn’t anyone think it’s odd to read anti-modalistic passages AND modalistic passages in the same “scriptures”?
3. Don’t Mormons find it strange that there are no definitive statements of doctrine and that doctrine can change from one prophet to another? It’s very easy to have a “true” religion if there are no statements of belief that can be examined.

MM Siciliana,
Since I am LDS I feel comfortable answering your last question here. By “examining” all the LDS “standard works” or by also “examining” recent LDS General Conference talks, then one would be examining LDS definitive statements of doctrine. The Book of Mormon doctrine hasn’t changed, nor has the Book of Moses doctrine nor the Biblical doctrinal beliefs by virtue of the Joseph Smith “Translation”.

I don’t think it’s “odd” to read passages that describe the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost as One God when in the Book of John we can read that Christ said we are all to become “one” (John 17:21-23).

Jesus can rightly be described as the “Everlasting Father” and the “Eternal Father” since He is both the Father of our salvation and redemption and the Father or Creator of this earth. He is also the Father in the sense that He had the inherited power over death and the inherited power to resurrect Himself. He explained this Himself from time to time during His ministry.

Have a good day.

 

[T_Hope]

I wrote:

Today, it would seem that the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as “Mormons”, subscribe to a form of the heresy of adoptionism. (Adoptionism is the belief that Jesus became divine at some point in time.) It is very difficult to find any absolute statements of doctrine for the LDS ecclesial community. They have no creed or catechism, and a later LDS “prophet” can change what earlier an earlier LDS “prophet” or “prophets” taught. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism was printed in 1992, but its editor writes:
Those who have written and edited [the Encyclopedia of Mormonism] have only tried to explain their understanding of Church history, doctrines, and procedures; their statements and opinions remain their own. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism is a joint product of Brigham Young University and Macmillan Publishing Company, and its contents do not necessarily represent the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Ludlow).

Very informative paper.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Not solely on a Mormon perpective/interpretation as you said…In support of our view we quoted The Bible, Pastor of Hermas, 2 Clement, definitiion of Greek terms, Tertullian, Michael M. Winter…former lecturer in Fundamental Theology at St. John’s Seminary (Roman Catholic, early Christian literature.

Basic argument:

1 - Church means Assembly
2 - The term Church is much broader and inclusive than an “earthly organization”
3 - The Church belongs not only to the present, but existed from the beginning
4 - Church is not just an earthly organizaiton, but existed before the foundation of the world
5 - The Church existed among the Saint in all ages.
6 - Jesus did not refer to the Church primarily as an earthly organization
7 - Gates of Hell = Hades = World of the dead
8 - Christ broke the Gates of Hell. Ample evidence from the early Christian literature

Therefore, even if the Church as an earthly organization disappears and reappears periodically, the church will always survive!

yes, those are Catholic doctrines, points 1-8. It is understood that “Church” is synonymous with “Kingdom of Heaven”. Which is the context of the Catholics you are quoting.

Your conclusion, however, is flawed.

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Jesus is talking to Peter at a certain time and a certain place. Establishing something new. Jesus is promising Peter that what is established on him will always prevail.

The Church is the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. It’s establishment (on Peter) is linked to Christ’s Sacrifice, whereby all things are restored. This includes the Kingdom of Heaven on earth.

Jesus is not telling Peter He is the leader over something that has always existed.

What Jesus has established does not fade. To believe otherwise is to not trust Him and to assert that His Sacrifice is insufficient at best; has no lasting efficacy at worst.

From the CCC:

763 It was the Son’s task to accomplish the Father’s plan of salvation in the fullness of time. Its accomplishment was the reason for his being sent. “The Lord Jesus inaugurated his Church by preaching the Good News, that is, the coming of the Reign of God, promised over the ages in the scriptures.” To fulfill the Father’s will, Christ ushered in the Kingdom of heaven on earth. The Church “is the Reign of Christ already present in mystery.”

766 The Church is born primarily of Christ’s total self-giving for our salvation, anticipated in the institution of the Eucharist and fulfilled on the cross. “The origin and growth of the Church are symbolized by the blood and water which flowed from the open side of the crucified Jesus.” “For it was from the side of Christ as he slept the sleep of death upon the cross that there came forth the ‘wondrous sacrament of the whole Church.’” As Eve was formed from the sleeping Adam’s side, so the Church was born from the pierced heart of Christ hanging dead on the cross.

[767](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/767.htm’) “When the work which the Father gave the Son to do on earth was accomplished, the Holy Spirit was sent on the day of Pentecost in order that he might continually sanctify the Church.” Then “the Church was openly displayed to the crowds and the spread of the Gospel among the nations, through preaching, was begun.” As the “convocation” of all men for salvation, the Church in her very nature is missionary, sent by Christ to all the nations to make disciples of them.

[768](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/768.htm’) So that she can fulfill her mission, the Holy Spirit “bestows upon [the Church] varied hierarchic and charismatic gifts, and in this way directs her.” “Henceforward the Church, endowed with the gifts of her founder and faithfully observing his precepts of charity, humility and self-denial, receives the mission of proclaiming and establishing among all peoples the Kingdom of Christ and of God, and she is on earth the seed and the beginning of that kingdom.”

 

[Javl]

This article answers the question: “Does the Book of Mormon Teach Mainstream Trinitarianism or Modalism?”

fairlds.org/pubs/BoMTrin.pdf

I have read the article and have serious doubts about the explanation given. The God you worship is not the same God that I worship. The reference to “gods” ( small g ) as given in the Bible does not mean that other gods besides the Trinity exist. The “gods” mentioned are all human. When the term “I have said you are gods” is used it is meant to describe the secular power that men in authority have over others. Also some of the “gods” mentioned may refer to Satan and his demons.

I am a Trinitarian and believe that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit. The Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit, and The Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. They are three individuals and not various aspects of one. The Three being One God. They are Spirit and have no flesh and blood as humans have. When God is described as having human traits the description is used metaphorically. When God said “Let us make man in our image”, he meant that we also are spiritual and have a soul/spirit.

Therefore, Mormonism does not teach mainstream Trinitarianism, but modalism.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[catholic-rcia]

Just some thoughts.
Because Mormons do not believe in the Holy Trinity they lack the ability to understand how it could be that only Christ does good through them, say when they love their children. They see this love as coming from themselves rather than from God through Jesus to their children. A Catholic who gets this understands how love works and that all praise and Glory in love must go to Jesus. They do not understand that love is a gift of God, not something they posses on their own as Satan would have them beleive. When they do good things they think that it comes from them. As Catholics we recognize this as sin, that this is our fallen nature. We go to confession for this.

Satan would tell us to take the credit, to shine in the eyes of others, to seek Glory etc…that it is a good thing. If you pay attention throughout the day you will see this about yourself. This stems from Satan’s hatred, jealousy of God, Jesus to be precise. It has its root in pride.

I am not singling out the LDS here, we all have this sin in us. But in all honestly I feel that I understand it clearly and can see it for what it is. The Catholic faith has revealed this to me. I find so much peace in understanding the game Satan plays with us. Because I can turn to Jesus for strength when I get spun in it. Come out of it in Victory with Jesus through my sincere Confessions. He truly becomes your best friend and Master over your life. He is never condoning, shunning, placing distance between Him and us. No, when we fail He has a slight smile on His face telling us to get back up and to keep walking beside Him. We are loved this much by Him at all times no matter how far we distance our selves from Him.

Unless you encounter Trinity you can be innocent to this sin of taking credit, rather than giving all credit up to Jesus. The gift we have as Christians is what we received at our Baptism. The gift of the Holy Spirit dwelling in us,. Jesus in us, the Holy trinity including us. Once you come to an understanding of this you spend your life surrendering to it. It is much bigger than you or I. You stop trying to achieve credit in the eyes of others and admit that you are nothing but a sinner being saved by the only one who matters in the eyes of God….Jesus. And if we are with Him and in Him we matter as well. To put it another way, if the son in the sky was God, then Jesus would be the light that gives life to the world. I would be the moon that has no light of its own. But shine the light of our Lord and God on it I would be alive only because of this light shining on me. (Trinity) With Jesus there is nothing you can do, or not do that will make Him love you more or less. As Mother Teresa once said: This life is not about being successful, It’s all about being faithful.

Any success you may have in this life is because of Jesus, you have to take a second seat to Him as He made us and breathed His life into us. Without Him nothing good would be done by us, nothing would exist. What we are is choice. We have been given the freedom to choose God over ourselves. In this we choose life and it is very good. I know what I have been gifted and I cherish it every day. Mostly as Mass. I have the gift of being loved by my Creator. All He askes is that we pass it on.

Truth lies within the Holy Trinity.
www.utahmission.com
www.chooseyourcross.com