LDS, Creeds, and the Trinity

[gazelam]

Here is an interesting post from an LDS blog site: timesandseasons.org/index.php/2013/06/dont-debate-the-trinity/ The author gives his experience debating the Trinity. From that I just want to share a couple of quotes. Some on CAF’ers express frustration figuring out exactly what LDS believe. Here’s a quote Joseph Smith wrote in his journal that hopefully shed additional insight on why this can be.

The most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter Day Saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some peculiar creed, which deprived it’s members of the privilege, of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter Day Saints have no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time. ( The Journal of Joseph: The Personal Diary of a Modern Prophet, compiled by Leland Smith Nelson, p. 203.)

Then a commenter in the same post shares a couple of quotes regarding the Trinity. The first is from the book “How Wide the Divide?” by Robinson (LDS) and Blomberg (Evangelical)

Both Evangelicals and the LDS believe in the simultaneous oneness and threeness of God, though Evangelicals understand God’s oneness as an ontological oneness of being, while the LDS understand it as a oneness of mind, will and purpose. Both sides accept the biblical data about Christ and the Trinity, but interpret them by different extrabiblical standards (the ancient creeds for Evangelicals, the modern revelations of Joseph Smith for Mormons).

The second is from “LDS Beliefs: A Doctrinal Reference” by Robert L. Millett.

Latter-day Saints believe in the Trinity in the sense that we believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the three members of the Godhead. We do not, however, subscribe to all the teachings of the post-New Testament church councils and creeds that set forth what some have called the ontological oneness of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit — that these three, while three in person, are yet one in being.

I’m sharing these last two quotes because they seem to nicely and concisely highlight the differences and similarities between LDS and Orthodox Christian views on the Trinity. Enjoy!!

 

[LivingWaters7]

Then a commenter in the same post shares a couple of quotes regarding the Trinity. The first is from the book “How Wide the Divide?” by Robinson (LDS) and Blomberg (Evangelical)

Both Evangelicals and the LDS believe in the simultaneous oneness and threeness of God, though Evangelicals understand God’s oneness as an ontological oneness of being, while the LDS understand it as a oneness of mind, will and purpose. Both sides accept the biblical data about Christ and the Trinity, but interpret them by different extrabiblical standards (the ancient creeds for Evangelicals, the modern revelations of Joseph Smith for Mormons).

The second is from “LDS Beliefs: A Doctrinal Reference” by Robert L. Millett.

Latter-day Saints believe in the Trinity in the sense that we believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the three members of the Godhead. We do not, however, subscribe to all the teachings of the post-New Testament church councils and creeds that set forth what some have called the ontological oneness of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit — that these three, while three in person, are yet one in being.

I’m sharing these last two quotes because they seem to nicely and concisely highlight the differences and similarities between LDS and Orthodox Christian views on the Trinity. Enjoy!!

Actually I don’t see this as highlighting the differences and similarities between the LDS and orthodox Christian views on the Trinity at all, especially when it uses words that aren’t defined (what is an “ontological oneness”?). Also, I think Trinitarians would agree that there is a oneness of mind and purpose (though obviously believing there to be more to it).

The problem I see with many LDS criticisms of the orthodox Trinity is that they do not understand the usage of various words in the traditional definition. This is generally in reference to the words “person” and “being”. LDS, following common English usage, use these words interchangeably. In contrast, the orthodox Trinity doctrine was not formally defined in a modern English speaking world, and those words are used to refer to two different concepts. This is why many arguments between LDS and orthodox Christians go nowhere, because they aren’t using the same understandings of words. Unfortunately, many orthodox Christians themselves do not understand this distinction between “person” and “being” in its Trinitarian theological usage. It is also helpful to note that “being” is frequently used interchangeably with “nature” or “essence”, as we see in the CCC.

I think a major difference between the two, outside of the LDS understanding that there are three Gods that are one because they are in agreement and have the same will, is on the issue of the eternality of the Trinity vs Godhead. I mentioned this in another thread, but I think it’s important, so I’ll mention it again (and I don’t believe you engaged it) .

With the orthodox Trinity, the belief is that the Trinity has always existed as such. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost have always existed as the Trinity, and there never was a time when any Person of the Trinity didn’t exist, or didn’t exist in that Trinitarian relationship. The Son is eternally the Son, the Holy Ghost is eternally the Holy Ghost, the Father is eternally the Father, and there never was a time where one existed and another didn’t. This is what is meant by “distinct but not separate”. They are distinct Persons, not each other, and they have eternally existed in their roles. God is one, but not solitary (and never has been). I believe the CCC has that phrase (with my parenthetical addition).

In contrast, the LDS Godhead has not always existed as such. The Son and the Holy Ghost are the spirit offspring of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, just like we all are. The Son was the Firstborn out of all of us. Therefore, prior to this spiritual begetting of all the sons and daughters of God the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost existed as “intelligence”, as we all did, and were not members of the Godhead. The Godhead therefore has not existed from all eternity (as the Trinity is defined as). The Firstborn, Jehovah, became “The Son” after the Council in Heaven when it was given that He would be the Savior (a position that Lucifer wanted, desiring all to be forced to be saved, and he would be glorified for saving everyone).

I think that that highlights a major difference between both views.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Not to mention, I see it as the greatest evidence against Mormonism being a Christian religion. You can’t say you are a Christian and at the same time describe the God you worship as being a non-Christian God. That’s the best scenario for the LDS view of the God who we worship, it devolves into mocking the God we worship fairly quickly.

 

[R_C]

Some on CAF’ers express frustration figuring out exactly what LDS believe. Here’s a quote Joseph Smith wrote in his journal that hopefully shed additional insight on why this can be. I’m sharing these last two quotes because they seem to nicely and concisely highlight the differences and similarities between LDS and Orthodox Christian views on the Trinity. Enjoy!!

Thanks for providing some additional insight on the matter. It can be indeed confusing at times.

 

[drac16]

Well, the LDS church simply doesn’t believe in the trinity. The thing with the LDS leaders and their missionaries is that they use much of the same language/terminology that christians use, but the mormons mean very different things by it (than that of the christian). The trinity was established and agreed upon as three seperate persons, one god in essence. This was established hundreds of years before Joseph Smith Jr. was even born.

The three persons being one in purpose is not the same as three divine persons with unique functions, yet one god in essence. Mormons do not believe in the trinity. You cannot come hundreds of years after an established christian doctrine [like the trinity] is codified, change it, and then still claim to believe in the trinity.

 

[andrewstx]

Creedlesness the lack of a creed, is not unique to LDS members. There were other sects that emerged during the same era who lacked a creed or confession.

I think that Mr. Smith had creeds and confessions confused. There are but three creeds to exist in orthodox Christianity and they are very simple explanations of the Christian faith. The one that is different is the Athanasian creed that goes into more detail is more complex.

But again the confusion between creed and confession was common among restoration groups.

Before my conversion I too was a member of another restoration sect. They substituted slogans for confessions, but their slogans became in effect a confession of faith.

One of them was “No creed but the Christ”.

Others went “No book but the bible. No name but the divine”.

 

[andrewstx]

This sect was very similar to the LDS. They too taught the apostasy/restoration dichotomy.

They too had baptism for remission of sin by submersion of believers only.

They too observed the Sacrament/Lord’s Supper every Sunday and no other day.

They too had a non hierarchical ministry or priesthood.

And they too felt they were the only true church.

 

[TexanKnight]

The problem is, the LDS HAVE no creed…so that is one reason why their belief system is constantly changing.

Second, and most dangerous, Mormons use the same words we do with significantly different meanings.

For example,

Catholic God: everlasting, never changes, same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
LDS God: once a sinful man, changeable, every changing

Catholic Christ: All Powerful, Part of the Trinity
LDS Christ: Weak. Failed to maintain His Church TWICE. Once in the Middle East and once in the Americas.

And this is just a small example.

Don’t get drawn into a discussion using the same words as them ebcause they have different meanings.

 

[andrewstx]

The problem is, the LDS HAVE no creed…so that is one reason why their belief system is constantly changing.

Second, and most dangerous, Mormons use the same words we do with significantly different meanings.

For example,

Catholic God: everlasting, never changes, same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
LDS God: once a sinful man, changeable, every changing

Catholic Christ: All Powerful, Part of the Trinity
LDS Christ: Weak. Failed to maintain His Church TWICE. Once in the Middle East and once in the Americas.

And this is just a small example.

Don’t get drawn into a discussion using the same words as them ebcause they have different meanings.

I think that Mormons have an unwritten confession like the sect I left. You can hear it at a local ward every fast and testimony Sunday, repeatedly.

"I believe the church is true, that Joseph Smith is a true prophet. I believe that BOM is true, and that we have a living prophet. I say these things in the name of Jesus Christ, Aymen.

 

[Miriam1947]

Hi LivingWaters7, I see that you are inactive LDS now.

I hope things are going well with you.

Regarding the trinity in Mormonism. In JS’s original version of, I believe, the D&C he preached the trinity as we Christians know it. It was only later that he changed his views and proclaimed the physical bodies of God and Christ.

His ideas got more and more ‘out there’ as time went on. Was that because he truly believed what he was preaching or because it was some sort of narcissism to see how far he he could push the limits and still have followers?

I have been reading quite a bit about him lately and found the Tanners site to be quite informative about the changes in D&C as well as the BOM.

 

[SpeSalvi]

I think that Mormons have an unwritten confession like the sect I left. You can hear it at a local ward every fast and testimony Sunday, repeatedly.

"I believe the church is true, that Joseph Smith is a true prophet. I believe that BOM is true, and that we have a living prophet. I say these things in the name of Jesus Christ, Aymen.

^Very true. Their creed is Joseph Smith. The problem that, unlike the Apostle’s Creed or the Nicene Creed (that confesses the truth of Jesus Christ), the Mormon “Creed” hinges on the belief that a man with a dubious (at best) history singlehandedly brought about the restoration of God’s Church on Earth.

Sigh.

I really wish that members of the LDS Church would see that their whole church hinges on the history of Joseph Smith, and that Joseph Smith was NOT an upstanding, sinless person. Once they realize that their founder isn’t the person he claimed to be, it all just… falls apart.

My moment was when I realized the stark difference between the martyrdom of St. Peter and the murder of Joseph Smith. St. Peter not only submitted to his cross, he asked to be crucified upside down to SHOW that he knew he was not equal to Christ, and was not worthy to die the way Christ died.

Joseph Smith used a gun trying to defend himself. He fired blindly down a stairwell, not knowing whether he’d hit friends or foes. He KILLED people trying to get away from his death, and then he was shot trying to jump out a window to escape,
Joseph Smith did not embrace his meeting with God, he fled from it. Is that the actions of a true man of God? Is that how the head of the TRUE CHURCH of God acts?

That was the moment I realized, in my heart of hearts, that the LDS Church was fraud. I had known the Catholic Church was truly God’s Church for a long time. But when I realized- not logically, and not emotionally, but in my soul- that I had been born and raised in a faith that hinged on a murderer, I was done.

 

[TexanKnight]

Hi LivingWaters7, I see that you are inactive LDS now.

I hope things are going well with you.

Regarding the trinity in Mormonism. In JS’s original version of, I believe, the D&C he preached the trinity as we Christians know it. It was only later that he changed his views and proclaimed the physical bodies of God and Christ.

His ideas got more and more ‘out there’ as time went on. Was that because he truly believed what he was preaching or because it was some sort of narcissism to see how far he he could push the limits and still have followers?

I have been reading quite a bit about him lately and found the Tanners site to be quite informative about the changes in D&C as well as the BOM.

what is really odd, is that JS once taught that God the Father was Spirit, then later changed it flesh and bones…

A true prophet would not keep making mistakes like that

 

[Mumbles140]

I had a distinct thought regarding Mormons on Saturday and I was reminded of it by the discussion about the different revelations, the Evangelicals through the early Christian Church, and the Mormons through Joseph Smith. I’m not sure this is the right thread for it, but here it goes:

The Jewish people were often tested by God as a means of proving their faith - Exodus, Abraham and Isaac, etc. And all of those events were pointing towards a single event - the coming of the Messiah. We as Christians believe that Christ was that Messiah, and there was no more periods of waiting - our ‘test’ of the faith was whether we chose to follow Christ or not. Many of the Jewish people did not recognize Him as the Messiah, but others did, and they went out and converted Jews and pagans into the faith. This went on (and continues to go on) since Christ’s Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension.

Now, with all of that being said, why would God allow the error to be spread from that moment until Joseph Smith’s revelations 1800 years later? Why, after the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophesies, would He not provide any further instruction or guidance until the 1800’s?

I base this opinion while openly claiming I do not have a sound understanding of Mormonism, particularly the beliefs/teachings related to the history of Christian belief from 33 AD until 1830 AD. If I am mistaken, and some claims of validity are made to the early Christian tradition, please inform me, and also explain at what point the separation occurs? I say separation because some event must have divided the two (Mormonism and let’s call it Western Christianity so as to includes both Catholics and Protestants), as the faiths do stand apart on some critical issues, and I am also ignorant of when Mormons recognize that split. I could also be wrong about all of it, and Mormons hold that salvation exists for all Christians, even those holding beliefs in contract with Mormon teaching. However, I am very curious about all of this.

If this is not the right place to discuss this, I am sorry for potentially derailing the thread, but I hope to continue this conversation, whether here or in another post.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I think that Mormons have an unwritten confession like the sect I left. You can hear it at a local ward every fast and testimony Sunday, repeatedly.

"I believe the church is true, that Joseph Smith is a true prophet. I believe that BOM is true, and that we have a living prophet. I say these things in the name of Jesus Christ, Aymen.

Also a creed found in the questions asked to determine if they will baptize a prospective convert.

 

[LDSYep]

I, at times, while studying, pondering and discussing the Trinitarian conception of God, have come upon moments where I believe that the LDS Godhead conception is very similar to may positions with regards to the Trinitarian conception. I think that the main differences are more in the heads of those demanding that a difference exists than in the conceptions themselves. I think that the OP is correct in the fundamental difference between the two paradigms. The difference is in the degree of differentiation between the members that are God/Godhead.

 

[TexanKnight]

I, at times, while studying, pondering and discussing the Trinitarian conception of God, have come upon moments where I believe that the LDS Godhead conception is very similar to may positions with regards to the Trinitarian conception. I think that the main differences are more in the heads of those demanding that a difference exists than in the conceptions themselves. I think that the OP is correct in the fundamental difference between the two paradigms. The difference is in the degree of differentiation between the members that are God/Godhead.

that theory falls apart when you believe they are NOT 3 in 1 and that your god was once a sinful man and your jesus failed twice.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I think that the main differences are more in the heads of those demanding that a difference exists than in the conceptions themselves.

There is an enormous difference between the two. In a Trinitarin understanding it is not possible for The Son and Satan to be brothers, there is no place for a heavenly mother. That our beliefs are close in this area is really nothing short of a lie perpetrated by LDS apologists and missionaries (sorry) to lull non-LDS into accepting Mormonism as just another Christian religion like the Methodists, or Lutherans or Baptists.

 

[LivingWaters7]

I think that the main differences are more in the heads of those demanding that a difference exists than in the conceptions themselves.

See post #2 for why this is false, and that the main differences are actually quite significant ones as to the nature of the Trinity vs Godhead.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Can that really be called trinity? Trinity as it is defined has been set and accepted (for the most part) since Constantinople. The mormons are really still tritheistic, or monotheistic if they regaurd the son and spirit as inferior to the father in power and in ontological existence.

Though I don’t see what there is to boast about in saying “We accept truth as it is given because we have no creed.” It just means that they are not absolutely certain about the truth and could be wrong still.

 

[mtolympus]

The problem I see with many LDS criticisms of the orthodox Trinity is that they do not understand the usage of various words in the traditional definition. This is generally in reference to the words “person” and “being”. LDS, following common English usage, use these words interchangeably. In contrast, the orthodox Trinity doctrine was not formally defined in a modern English speaking world, and those words are used to refer to two different concepts. This is why many arguments between LDS and orthodox Christians go nowhere, because they aren’t using the same understandings of words. Unfortunately, many orthodox Christians themselves do not understand this distinction between “person” and “being” in its Trinitarian theological usage. It is also helpful to note that “being” is frequently used interchangeably with “nature” or “essence”, as we see in the CCC.

Very true. I don’t fully understand the difference in the Catholic definition of “persons” and “beings” in describing the Trinity.
For example if I say: “Joseph Smith saw God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ and he saw that they were two separate persons.” Would that be OK?

But if I said: “Joseph Smith saw God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ and he saw that they were two separate beings.” Would that not be OK?

To an LDS I am saying the same thing. What am I saying when speaking to a Catholic? I hope a Catholic will answer this as I am still trying to understand the difference.