Mormons and the Trinity

[CatholicGuyNY]

One of these days I hope that Mormon apologists and leaders will be able to accurately critique the Trinity doctrine, instead of Unitarianism/Modalism. In multiple settings, I have noticed that Mormon apologists and leaders simply do not know the difference between Trinitarianism and Unitarianism/Modalism. Some Mormons will retort that some Trinitarians themselves do not know the difference, which I fully agree with. The issue here is that, if a Mormon is writing an apologetic book or speaking in an official setting, and they are critiquing the Trinity doctrine, would it not make sense to go to official sources on the issue (especially when they ask us to do the same when critiquing Mormonism)? Here are a few examples, and their errors (which pretty much repeat the same basic error):

The Inevitable Apostasy and the Promised Restoration by Tad R. Callister (of the Seventy)

page 107-"If the members of the Godhead are different manifestations of the same person or substance, as some assert, then many scriptural events and passages make no sense whatsoever. Much of the confusion centers around John 10:30: ‘I and my Father are one.’ From this, many have assumed that God the Father and Jesus Christ are one and the same person. They often include the Holy Ghost in this ‘oneness.’ The scriptures assert and many of the early Christian writers testified, however, that they were three separate and distinct persons who shared a oneness, not in identity of person, but in purpose, unity, and will."

This of course is not what Trinitarians believe. Claiming that the “members of the Godhead are different manifestations of the same person or substance” is modalism, not Trinitarianism. “God the Father and Jesus Christ are one and the same person” is modalism. Sharing an “identity of person” is modalism. Trinitarianism teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons.

As a sidenote, I’ve always wondered about the use of “separate and distinct” by Mormons to describe the Persons.

page 107-“Why would Jesus have prayed to himself?”

Good question, Trinitarians would ask the same thing! We believe that Jesus prayed to the Father, who is distinct from him, and not to himself.

page 108-"In the beginning God said, ‘Let us make man in our image’ (Genesis 1:26). Who is the other person making up the ‘us’ and ‘our’ if God and Jesus are the same personage?

Good question, Trinitarians would ask the same thing! We do not believe that God (the Father) and Jesus are the same person, but are distinct persons. The “us” and “our” in Genesis 1:26 clearly is proof of this, and we agree with Mormons. This question would be better asked to Oneness Pentecostals.

179th Semiannual General Conference , October 2009. Tad Callister, of the Seventy-"Joseph Smith-Prophet of the Restoration"

" *First, he learned that God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, are two separate, distinct beings. The Bible confirms Joseph Smith’s discovery. It tells us that the Son submitted His will to the Father (see Matthew 26:42). We are moved by the Savior’s submission and find strength in His example to do likewise, but what would have been the depth and passion of Christ’s submission or the motivational power of that example if the Father and the Son were the same being and in reality the Son was merely following His own will under a different name?

The scriptures give further evidence of this great truth: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son” (John 3:16). A father offering up his only son is the supreme demonstration of love that the human mind and heart can conceive and feel. It is symbolized by the touching story of Abraham and Isaac (see Genesis 22). But if the Father is the same being as the Son, then this sacrifice of all sacrifices is lost, and Abraham is no longer offering up Isaac—Abraham is now offering up Abraham."*

This confuses a number of issues. Firstly, Mormons tend to use the words “person” and “being” interchangeably, as we do in common language. But in Trinitarianism, we are not. He makes the same mistake that he did in his book by confusing Trinitarianism with Modalism/Unitarianism. The Son was not “following His own will under a different name” in Trinitarianism. The Father is a distinct person from the Son.

Also, the Abraham and Isaac parallel fails as well. By claiming that the Father and the Son are the same being, we are not saying that they are the same person. Instead, we are saying that they are of the same divine nature, purpose, intent, etc. To say that they are the same person is a heresy, modalism. So, Abraham is not “now offering up Abraham”, but he would be offering up Isaac according to Trinitarianism.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

177th Semiannual General Conference, October 2007. Jeffrey Holland, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles-"The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent"
I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance, a Trinitarian notion never set forth in the scriptures because it is not true.

What does he mean by “three persons combined in one substance”? I have never seen it said, in any creed or official statement by a Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox church, that the three persons are “combined” in one substance. Trinitarians would therefore agree that it is not true that the Three Persons are combined in one substance, since that is not what the Trinity states.

Mormons don’t like it when their beliefs are misrepresented in critiques, and many also don’t like to use “unofficial” sources to reference LDS beliefs (hence why many Mormon books and websites have a disclaimer at the beginning). I hope that Mormon apologists and leaders could actually present what the Trinity teaches, instead of what Modalism teaches. Some Trinitarians confusing the Trinity for Modalism does not excuse this, when official sources that do not do such a thing (and clearly proclaim the belief in three distinct Persons in contrast to Modalism) are readily available. Only then can we actually discuss the differences between our beliefs.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Here’s another one:

The Biblical Roots of Mormonism by Eric Shuster and Charles Sale

*page 73 (referring to the Council of Nicaea)-“The council majority came up with a compromise conception, declaring that there were indeed three “persons”-Father, Son, and Holy Ghost-but that these three persons were not separate entities, not persons in the usual sense, but instead persons who were without substance, essence, or individual existence.” *

Where is it stated that the Persons are “without substance, essence, or individual existence”? The authors do not list a source, and the Council of Nicaea certainly says no such thing. In fact, the Trinity doctrine quite clearly states that They are of the same substance/essence/nature. Also, what do they mean by “without…individual existence”? Trinitarians clearly believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit really are distinct Persons that exist as distinct Persons, and not aspects/manifestations of one person, as the heresy of modalism teaches.

 

[Wesley7]

Possibly it just looks like several old heresies already listed in the decrees of a council.

 

[Wesley7]

It looks like these old heresies have already been described and listed in the council.

 

[zerinus]

One of these days I hope that Mormon apologists and leaders will be able to accurately critique the Trinity doctrine, instead of Unitarianism/Modalism. . . .

You have wasted a lot of time and effort over nothing. Mormonism is only interested in correct doctrine of the Trinity, or the Godhead, received by revelation. How other Christians understand it incorrectly, or misunderstand it, is not our concern. The correct doctrine of the Trinity or Godhead is the one taught by Mormonism:

Joseph Smith-History 1:

17 . . . When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

D&C 130:

22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

That is the correct doctrine of the Trinity as far as we are concerned. How other people misunderstand it is not something Mormons stay awake at night thinking about.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

You have wasted a lot of time and effort over nothing. Mormonism is only interested in correct doctrine of the Trinity, or the Godhead, received by revelation. How other Christians understand it incorrectly, or misunderstand it, is not our concern. The correct doctrine of the Trinity or Godhead is the one taught by Mormonism:

Joseph Smith-History 1:

17 . . . When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him

D&C 130:

22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

That is the correct doctrine of the Trinity as far as we are concerned. How other people misunderstand it is not something Mormons stay awake at night thinking about.

The issue here is that some Mormons, including your own leaders in General Conference, are setting up straw man arguments to contrast your doctrine with. Since the doctrine of the Trinity as described in the above situations does not exist, and they couldn’t take the time to actually correctly state what they are trying to critique (and instead describe Modalism), their arguments fall flat. Your leaders were “concerned}” enough about our beliefs that they thought to reference them in General Conference, yet they couldn’t do so correctly.

Obviously the Father and the Son are “two personages”, this is standard in Trinitarian belief.

 

[campeador]

How other people misunderstand it is not something Mormons stay awake at night thinking about.

I think you misrepresent it (link to passages below):

1 Nephi 11:18

And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin which thou seest,** is the mother of God**, after the manner of flesh.

1 Nephi11:21

And the angel said unto me,** behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!** Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?

1 Nephi 11:32

And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me again, saying, look! And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Everlasting God, was judged of the world; and I saw and bear record.

1 Nephi 13:40

And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which is of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Saviour of the world; and that all men must come unto Him, or they cannot be saved;

 

[why_me]

I think you misrepresent it (link to passages below):

1 Nephi 11:18
1 Nephi11:21

1 Nephi 11:32

1 Nephi 13:40

Here is an article explaining the book of mormon teaching and the confusion that some have about it:

fairlds.org/pubs/BoMTrin.pdf

But it is long and academic sounding.

 

[campeador]

Here is an article explaining the book of mormon teaching and the confusion that some have about it:

fairlds.org/pubs/BoMTrin.pdf

Have you read it?

 

[campeador]

One of these days I hope that Mormon apologists and leaders will be able to accurately critique the Trinity doctrine…

Sorry, CatholicGuyNY. I didn’t mean to hijack your thread. I was genuinely hoping this topic would get off the ground.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Sorry, CatholicGuyNY. I didn’t mean to hijack your thread. I was genuinely hoping this topic would get off the ground.

no problem

 

[Wesley7]

You have wasted a lot of time and effort over nothing. Mormonism is only interested in correct doctrine of the Trinity, or the Godhead, received by revelation. How other Christians understand it incorrectly, or misunderstand it, is not our concern. The correct doctrine of the Trinity or Godhead is the one taught by Mormonism:

Joseph Smith-History 1:

17 . . . When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

D&C 130:

22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

That is the correct doctrine of the Trinity as far as we are concerned. How other people misunderstand it is not something Mormons stay awake at night thinking about.

You’re serious. The doctrine of the Trinity was always guarded by Tradition and is explained by Saints and Church Fathers.

 

[zerinus]

The issue here is that some Mormons, including your own leaders in General Conference, are setting up straw man arguments to contrast your doctrine with. Since the doctrine of the Trinity as described in the above situations does not exist, and they couldn’t take the time to actually correctly state what they are trying to critique (and instead describe Modalism), their arguments fall flat. Your leaders were “concern[ed}” enough about our beliefs that they thought to reference them in General Conference, yet they couldn’t do so correctly.

Obviously the Father and the Son are “two personages”, this is standard in Trinitarian belief.

Are you suggesting that there are no real differences between the Mormon doctrine of the Trinity and the traditional Christian one? If that is what you are suggesting, then I must respectfully disagree. I am convinced there are important differences. If, on the other hand, you do agree that there are significant differences between the two doctrines, then perhaps the reason why Mormons do not fully understand the traditional Christian theological meaning of the Trinity is because they believe that theirs is the correct one, and they do not feel the need to waste too much time on the incorrect doctrine. After all, once you have discovered the truth, why should you want to waste any time with the error? The Mormon doctrine of the Trinity, however, is clear enough that it does not require any disambiguation. A child of six can understand the Mormon doctrine of the Godhead, in contrast to the traditional Christian one.
[/quote]

 

[campeador]

Well I’m over six. Please, explain it to me.

And can you make it so I don’t have to wade an ocean?

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Are you suggesting that there are no real differences between the Mormon doctrine of the Trinity and the traditional Christian one?

Obviously I said no such thing. What I did say was that “Obviously the Father and the Son are “two personages”, this is standard in Trinitarian belief.” Trinitarians firmly believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are really distinct Persons, in contrast to Unitarianism/Modalism.

There are of course clear differences between our beliefs, namely the Mormon belief that the Father has a body of flesh and bones (and the associated “speculative” belief that He incarnated on some sort of earth), the belief that Jesus was “organized”/created by the Father, the belief that the Father is married, etc.

If that is what you are suggesting, then I must respectfully disagree. I am convinced there are important differences. If, on the other hand, you do agree that there are significant differences between the two doctrines, then perhaps the reason why Mormons do not fully understand the traditional Christian theological meaning of the Trinity is because they believe that theirs is the correct one, and they do not feel the need to waste too much time on the incorrect doctrine. After all, once you have discovered the truth, why should you want to waste any time with the error?

This is illogical. If a Mormon leader or author is attempting to accurately contrast what they believe to be the “true” belief with what they believe is the “apostate” belief, then it makes sense for them to accurately portray the apostate belief so that they really are making a valid compare and contrast, and not inventing a straw man doctrine. Mormon leaders and authors have “wasted” enough time with the Trinity doctrine by referring to it in books and in General Conference, yet many of them have consistently argued against Modalism, and not the Trinity.

I am not concerned with any ol’ Mormon. I am talking about those Mormons that bring up the Trinity doctrine in comparison and contrasting with the Mormon Godhead.

The Mormon doctrine of the Trinity, however, is clear enough that it does not require any disambiguation. A child of six can understand the Mormon doctrine of the Godhead, in contrast to the traditional Christian one.

Of course it requires disambiguation. There are multiple statements by Joseph Smith, as well as in Mormon scriptures, that need to be clarified. For example, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are referred to as “one God”, then other times they are Gods/three Gods. The Son is called the Father. In JST Luke 10:23, the Son is the Father and the Father is the Son. Jesus is called the “Eternal God”, yet LDS teach that He was created/organized by the Father, so there was a point where He was not “Eternal God”. Clearly, LDS teaching on the Godhead needs disambiguation.

 

[zerinus]

Well I’m over six. Please, explain it to me.

And can you make it so I don’t have to wade an ocean?

The Mormon doctrine states that the Trinity or Godhead consists of three distinct and separate personages, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The Father and Son each have bodies of flesh and bones as we do, but the Holy Ghost does not, and is a personage of spirit.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

The Mormon doctrine states that the Trinity or Godhead consists of three distinct and separate personages, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The Father and Son each have bodies of flesh and bones as we do, but the Holy Ghost does not, and is a personage of spirit.

Of course there is more depth than that, since I could say:

The Traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity consists of three distinct Persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Son has a body of flesh and bones, while the Father and the Holy Spirit are spirit only.

Seems as if we could both explain these things to 6 year olds.

 

[jwcarney95]

Mormon doctrine on the Trinity is very different than traditional Christianity.

1. Most important is they believe Christ is a created being, just like us.
   That alone puts a permanent wedge between Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox doctrine and theirs.

2.They do not believe in the absolute divinity/deity of Christ.

1. They believe the Holy Spirit left the earth when Paul died (which leads to their
   practice off baptism of the dead, Since there was no one saved since Paul’s death, but
   God loves us so much, if we get our ancestors baptized, they can be redeemed). They didn’t become experts at genealogy just for the fun of it.

4.Someday, we will be like God, with our own planets to rule and start the process over.
This supports their doctrine of polygamy, not for lust, but to bring as many children into this world as possible to ascend to their Godhood and spread throughout the universe.

I wish I was making this up.

Joe C.

Many of us object to them using the term Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. It confuses people and causes other non Christian groups to lump them in with us.
(I don’t hate them, btw).

 

[zerinus]

Obviously I said no such thing. What I did say was that “Obviously the Father and the Son are “two personages”, this is standard in Trinitarian belief.”

There is a slight lexical difference between the words “person” and “personage”. In the abstract sense a legal entity like a corporation or a limited company can be regarded as a “person,” but not as a “personage”! A “personage” implies a real, physical, tangible person whom you can see, touch, handle, and distinguish physically from another “personage”. It does not have quite the same meaning as a “person”.

This is illogical. If a Mormon leader or author is attempting to accurately contrast what they believe to be the “true” belief with what they believe is the “apostate” belief, then it makes sense for them to accurately portray the apostate belief so that they really are making a valid compare and contrast, and not inventing a straw man doctrine. Mormon leaders and authors have “wasted” enough time with the Trinity doctrine by referring to it in books and in General Conference, yet many of them have consistently argued against Modalism, and not the Trinity.

I am not concerned with any ol’ Mormon. I am talking about those Mormons that bring up the Trinity doctrine in comparison and contrasting with the Mormon Godhead.

I personally am not in favor of making such comparisons. I prefer to explain the Mormon doctrine clearly, and let others make that comparison for themselves. After all, my role is simply to teach the to teach the truth, not to teach the error, even by way of comparison. Once the truth has been taught clearly, others can make that comparison for themselves.

Of course it requires disambiguation. There are multiple statements by Joseph Smith, as well as in Mormon scriptures, that need to be clarified. For example, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are referred to as “one God”, then other times they are Gods/three Gods. The Son is called the Father. In JST Luke 10:23, the Son is the Father and the Father is the Son. Jesus is called the “Eternal God”, yet LDS teach that He was created/organized by the Father, so there was a point where He was not “Eternal God”. Clearly, LDS teaching on the Godhead needs disambiguation.

The core element of it is what I had expressed above in my previous post, and it does not require any disambiguation, in contrast to the traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity that does.