Mormons and the Trinity

[mormon_fool]

Semper Fi:

While the theology “developed” insofar as the words that we used got bigger, the basic understanding has always been there.

I think utilizing a more sophisticated vocabulary only accounts for part of the development of doctrine. I agree that the basic ideas have always been present in Christian history. It is not the basics that LDS have a problem with. For example there is nothing about the nature of God and the Trinity that I don’t accept from my interpretation of the Bible and attempts to recover how the meaning the earliest Christians would have understood it.

Had everyone had access to all the documents and such that most of our early apologists had access to, I doubt that there would have been much strife about the concept of the Trinity.

The documents that have survived do reveal a lot of historical strife among the early apologists over the Trinity. The stuff I have read recently had Eusebius pitted up against Athananius and somewhat more sympathetic to Arius. But don’t take my word for it, Catholic David Waltz wrote a fine piece discussing the development of the Trinity doctrine and LDS points of contact with some of the early beliefs:
It is time for me to make few comments based primarily on the data we have just surveyed. First, I am not making the claim that the early Church Fathers taught a Mormon view of the Godhead. Second, I am claiming that there are many common points of contact between the Mormon doctrine of the Godhead and the early Church Fathers. Third, although there where common points among the Church Fathers concerning the Godhead, there was also much diversity. Fourth, the same can be said for both the past and present Mormon doctrine concerning the Godhead. Fifth, Mormon apologists do not have to reject the term homoousios if the original Nicene meaning is retained. Sixth, the Evangelical doctrine/doctrines of the Trinity was/were not explicitly taught by the early Church Fathers.

The only way to reconcile this belief with their stout monotheism was the Trinity.

Actually I would say that there are many ways to reconcile One God and three personages that are called God. I can create a list if you want. Athanasius’s way just become the dominant way.

-fool

 

[mormon_fool]

Catholic Dude:

Right here is a major distinction, and the the CC explains that infants cant commit actual sin because they dont have the ability to reason at that stage in their life.

Thanks for pointing this out. It is very easy to make mistakes in representing another faith!

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

mormon fool:

Actually I would say that there are many ways to reconcile One God and three personages that are called God. I can create a list if you want. Athanasius’s way just become the dominant way.

I would love to hear them, and making them three separate beings or one subordinate to the other would mean that one is not fully God or that there were three Gods. In Revelation we see that Christ is fully omnipotent and omnipresent, in the Gospel we see that the Spirit literally proceeds from the Father and the Son, and we know that God is Eternity, thus since there is Eternity there is one God in three Persons of the Godhead. Anything more or less than Trinity would mean less than Eternity which would mean God is not omnipresent nor omnipotent thus nullifying the Gospels.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

I would also like to point out that not all Mormons subscribe to Salt Lake City doctrines and that there is possibly one other group which may have a valid claim against the LDS Church in Salt Lake City. This church is the Community of Christ (Reorganized Latter-day Saints), which follows that the 2nd president was Joseph Smith’s son, not Brigham Young. The Community of Christ has the earlier version of the BoM and accept the Trinity and are pretty much orthodox Christians other than the fact that they accept Joseph Smith as a prophet and the BoM as Scripture. The Community of Christ can trace its lineage directly back to the people who settled in Utah, but are based in the midwest. They own the original LDS Temple in Ohio, so if one was to pick Mormonism he or she would have quite a few different flavors to pick from.

 

[mormon_fool]

Semper Fi:

I would also like to point out that not all Mormons subscribe to Salt Lake City doctrines and that there is possibly one other group which may have a valid claim against the LDS Church in Salt Lake City. This church is the Community of Christ (Reorganized Latter-day Saints), which follows that the 2nd president was Joseph Smith’s son, not Brigham Young. The Community of Christ has the earlier version of the BoM and accept the Trinity and are pretty much orthodox Christians other than the fact that they accept Joseph Smith as a prophet and the BoM as Scripture. The Community of Christ can trace its lineage directly back to the people who settled in Utah, but are based in the midwest. They own the original LDS Temple in Ohio, so if one was to pick Mormonism he or she would have quite a few different flavors to pick from.

A very nice summary. I would only make 2 corrections. First The Community of Christ church doesn’t trace itself to the leaders in Utah because essentially the split occurred as SLC based mormons left the midwest (primarily Illnois) for Utah and left the people behind that would later form the RLDS church some 10 years later. The RLDS church only recently changed its name. Second members of the RLDS/CoC church don’t really like being called mormons. “Mormon” almost exclusively refers to LDS church members.

I do think it is humorous that some see the Book of Mormon as more Trinitarian than the Bible. By all means, believe the Book of Mormon on this one !

 

[Brad_Haas]

Mormon Fool,

Do you have any ideas as to why the beliefs which Athanasius represented became the dominant way? It seems to me that the odds were against it. Even after the Council of Nicea, Arians were in power in the Empire, and used their influence to torment Athanasius and the Christians. I’ve read, though I never saw its historical basis, that Arianism had more followers than orthodox Christianity. Why did it come out on top?

 

[mormon_fool]

Semper Fi:

I would love to hear them, and making them three separate beings or one subordinate to the other would mean that one is not fully God or that there were three Gods.

In one sentence you just included every pre-Nicene Church Father. In seriousness though, I would consider either postulating three beings or subordinationalism as a possible reconciliation of the threeness, yet oneness of the Trinity. Neither meets much resistance from the Bible, which essentially explains why creeds were needed to head off the so-called Arian heresy.

David Waltz agrees with the following citations in my link above:
Bettenson writes, "‘Subordinationism’, it is true was pre-Nicene orthodox."18

Hanson wrote: Indeed, until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism. It could, about the year 300, have been described as a fixed part of catholic theology.19

In Revelation we see that Christ is fully omnipotent and omnipresent, in the Gospel we see that the Spirit literally proceeds from the Father and the Son, and we know that God is Eternity, thus since there is Eternity there is one God in three Persons of the Godhead. Anything more or less than Trinity would mean less than Eternity which would mean God is not omnipresent nor omnipotent thus nullifying the Gospels.

Just to make clear, I will not question your ability to reason from the scriptures to demonstrate that they logically lead to the orthodox Catholic view. However, from experience I know I can look at the same texts and draw different conclusions. Perhaps it is because I approach the text with different assumptions or perhaps I cheat too much and rely on modern revelation in my interpretations. But compound the problem of over millions of private interpreters who approach the text with different philosophical backgrounds and you will get almost as many different versions of how to reconcile the threeness and oneness of the Trinity.

As for a list, my friend TOmNossor started such a list in this post and the one above it. To go much further I would have do some research, but I think TOm’s list is a good mix.

–fool

 

[mormon_fool]

Brad Haas:

Mormon Fool,

Do you have any ideas as to why the beliefs which Athanasius represented became the dominant way? It seems to me that the odds were against it. Even after the Council of Nicea, Arians were in power in the Empire, and used their influence to torment Athanasius and the Christians. I’ve read, though I never saw its historical basis, that Arianism had more followers than orthodox Christianity. Why did it come out on top?

I don’t have any clear ideas on why Athanasius’s ideas eventually won everyone over. I suspect a turning point came when Augustine championed and developed the ideas and used his influence to establish them as orthodoxy. This is a good question for me to look for in my historical studies.

–fool

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

mormon fool:

In one sentence you just included every pre-Nicene Church Father.

Really? What about Justin Martyr? Or the Gospel of John?

Jn 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Word, or Logos is the 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Son of God and only-begotten, Jesus Christ.

 

[Brad_Haas]

Mormon Fool,

Could also have been because they’re true.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

mormon fool:

I don’t have any clear ideas on why Athanasius’s ideas eventually won everyone over.

This is because they weren’t just this ideas.

He was just the only one able to articulate them well enough so that everyone could agree.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Justin Martyr (circa 151 A.D.)

“We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein” (*First Apology *13:5–6 [A.D. 151]).

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

2 Cor. 13:14

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

Acts 2:33

Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

Ephesians 1:17-18

That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

1 Jn 1:1-3

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

1 Jn 2:22-23

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

1 Jn 5:7

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

 

[Brad_Haas]

Semper Fi,

That last 1 John reference was definitely not in the original text. It was a known gloss that Erasmus was forced to include into the Textus Receptus. Too bad, since it’s such a fine Trinitarian text.

By the way, Joseph Smith included it in his inspired translation of the Bible.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Brad Haas:

That last 1 John reference was definitely not in the original text. It was a known gloss that Erasmus was forced to include into the Textus Receptus. Too bad, since it’s such a fine Trinitarian text.

That is the opinion of some. It is weird that it would be declared to not be in the “original”, however look at 1 Jn 5:8 which seems to correlate to it.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Brad Haas:

That last 1 John reference was definitely not in the original text. It was a known gloss that Erasmus was forced to include into the Textus Receptus. Too bad, since it’s such a fine Trinitarian text.

I know. It is from a bookmark of quotes which I have saved from reading the Scriptures when discussing this with an SDA friend.

Here is the official translation:

6 This is the one who came through water and blood, 2 Jesus Christ, not by water alone, but by water and blood. The Spirit is the one that testifies, and the Spirit is truth. 7 So there are three that testify, 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord.

 

[majick275]

mormon fool:

I do think it is humorous that some see the Book of Mormon as more Trinitarian than the Bible. By all means, believe the Book of Mormon on this one !

Obviously portions of the BoM are true. That is because much of it is copied from the Bible. Much of it also appears to be influenced by the beliefs of Joe Smith and his friends/family who aided him in starting his church. The testimony of the witnesses shows what certainly seems like a belief in the orthodox Trinity. This would help to explain the numerous (and consistent) passages in the BoM that support this view. I don’t think anyone though thinks the BoM is MORE trinitarian than the Bible. Merely that (since it copies extensively from the Bible) it is AS trinitarian.

I am somewhat confused by your remark to believe the BoM on this. Are you stating that you believe in the same Trinity as Catholics? While that is obviously the ORIGINAL position of the LDS church it quickly ceased to be and certainly isn’t today.

 

[amgid]

majick275:

Obviously portions of the BoM are true. That is because much of it is copied from the Bible.

The current edition of the Book of Mormon is about 530 ages long. It contains direct quotes from the Bible, which altogether amounts to approximately 30 pages of the book. That is roughly 7% of the book. The rest of it shows all the hallmarks of being an original work. The Bible also contains numerous quotes from other parts of the Bible. The NT contains many quotes and references form the OT, as well as from within the NT. The OT also contains numerous quotes and references from within the OT. The Book of Mormon is no different. It is an original work, inspired, and a revelation from God. Like the precedent set in the Bible, it quotes from previous scripture. There is nothing unusual about that. The proportion of quotes from the Bible in the book of Mormon is no greater (and probably less) than the proportion of quotes from the Bible within the Bible. That only confirms the status of the Book of Mormon as a volume of scripture, of a divine origin, and a revelation from God.

Much of it also appears to be influenced by the beliefs of Joe Smith and his friends/family who aided him in starting his church.

Can you give specific quotes and examples to justify that statement? I have been a lifelong student of the Book of Mormon, and have come across nothing in the book itself, or outside of it, to lead me to such a conclusion.

The testimony of the witnesses shows what certainly seems like a belief in the orthodox Trinity.

I dispute that. I would say that the testimony of the witnesses shows a belief in Biblical Trinity, which is not the same thing as the orthodox Trinity. The two are worlds apart. We most certainly believe in the Biblical Trinity. It is written and affirmed in all the standard works of the LDS Church. But that is vastly different from what you call orthodox Trinity. We certainly don’t believe that, because it is unbiblical, it is false, and it came as a result of the apostasy of the early Christian church.

This would help to explain the numerous (and consistent) passages in the BoM that support this view.

Support what view?

I don’t think anyone though thinks the BoM is MORE trinitarian than the Bible. Merely that (since it copies extensively from the Bible) it is AS trinitarian.

The correct doctrine of the Trinity is certainly more clearly taught and explained in the Book of Mormon (and in the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price) than it is in the Bible. But can you give me some examples of those “extensive copying” from the Bible that you are referring to? —I mean in relation to the Trinitarian theology. I am not referring to the lengthy quotes from Isaiah at the beginning of the Book of Mormon, or those form Matthew 5 in Third Nephi. You are stating that the Trinitarian theology in the Book of Mormon contains extensive copying form the Bible. I would like to see some examples.

(Continued in the next post…)

amgid

 

[amgid]

(Continued from the previous post…)

The Trinitarian expressions in the Book of Mormon are highly original, and are not copied form the Bible or anywhere else. And they certainly do cast greater light on the Trinity theology than one would gain from reading the Bible alone. A few examples will be instructive. But before quoting passages specifically relating to the Trinity, I need first state that the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ is far more comprehensively taught and affirmed in the Book of Mormon than it is in the Bible. Here are some examples. This list is a small selection, and by no means complete:

Book of Mormon, Title Page:

… And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations…

2 Nephi 11:

7 For if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and he is Christ, and he cometh in the fulness of his own time.

2 Nephi 26:

12 And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God;

Mosiah 3:

5 For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, . . .

3 Nephi 11:

14 Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world.

D&C 1:

24 Behold, I {Jesus Christ} am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

D&C 19:

18 Which suffering caused myself {Christ}, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

D&C 38:

1 Thus saith the Lord your God, even Jesus Christ, the Great I AM, Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, . . .
These are all very original expressions. None of them are “copied” from the Bible or anywhere else. This is very important, because an essential ingredient in a correct understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity is the belief in the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ; and as you can see, this doctrine is more comprehensively taught in the Book of Mormon than it is in the Bible.

(Continued in the next post…)

amgid

 

[amgid]

(Continued from the previous post…)

As for the passages referring specifically to the Trinity as such, these too are highly original in the Book of Mormon, and are not copied from the Bible or anywhere else; and they do cast greater light on the subject:

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 the flesh he shall be called the Son of God, 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 the Son—

4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

Alma 11:

44 . . . and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God . . .

3 Nephi 1:

14 Behold, I come unto my own, to fulfil all things which I have made known unto the children of men from the foundation of the world, and to do the will, both of the Father and of the Son—of the Father because of me, and of the Son because of my flesh.

3 Nephi 20:

35 … and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of the Father; and the Father and I are one.

Mormon 9:

12 . . . And because of the fall of man came Jesus Christ, even the Father and the Son; and because of Jesus Christ came the redemption of man.

Ether 3:

14 . . . Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have light, and that eternally . . .

D&C 20:

28 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end.

D&C 93:

2 And that I {Jesus Christ} am the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world;

3 And that I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one—

4 The Father because he gave me of his fulness; and the Son because I was in the world, and made flesh my tabernacle, and dwelt among the sons of men . . .
Can you show me which one of these passages have been “extensively copied” form the Bible? These passages are entirely unique, and show that the Book of Mormon is a divinely inspired and an original work, not copied from anywhere else.

(Continued in the next post…)

amgid