Mormons and the Trinity

[amgid]

(Continued from the previous post…)

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?

We certainly do not! But we do believe in the same Trinity as the Bible. That is what the Book of Mormon Teaches. Those are two different things.

While that is obviously the ORIGINAL position of the LDS church it quickly ceased to be and certainly isn’t today.

You seem to have gone right off you head with that one. The ORIGINAL position of the LDS church is the same as the CURRENT position. I don’t recall the LDS Church ever disowning the Book of Mormon! I assure you that we still very much believe in the Book of Mormon; and in the Trinitarian theology, as well as in every other theology that it teaches. But the Trinitarian theology it teaches is the Trinity of the Bible, not that of “orthodox” Christendom. That doctrine is unbiblical and false, and originates from the apostasy of the early Christian church. That is not what we believe in.

The theology of the Godhead (or Trinity as you call it) in the LDS Church has never changed. It may have developed and expanded as the Church progressed, and additional light and knowledge was received; but it has never “changed”. Joseph Smith knew that the Father and the Son were two distinct and separate personages long before he had ever heard of the Book of Mormon. He acquired that knowledge from the First Vision, as follows:

JS-H 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!
Joseph Smith knew that long before he translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God. There has been no change in the theology of the godhead of the LDS Church.

amgid

 

[mormon_fool]

Semper Fi:

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

Justin Martyr is one of the best examples of a subordinationalist, see your own quote about Jesus is being in second place. Check out the Waltz article and Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Logos doctrine (which has John 1 as its best scripture tie in) for much more examples. From the latter:
As to the Divine Nature of the Word, all apologists are agreed but to some of them, at least to St. Justin and Tertuilian, there seemed to be in this Divinity a certain subordination (Justin, “I Apol.”, 13-cf. “II Apol.”, 13; Tertullian, “Adv. Prax.”, 9, 14, 26).
Like I said you don’t have to trust me on that the Pre-Nicene Fathers were subordinationalists, this has been observed in catholic literature already. TOmN and I recently discussed it this board, I will provide a link because I dislike reinventing the wheel everytime it comes up.

Thanks for providing the Bible scriptures. They do indeed help establish some facts about the nature of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. However the proponents of different interpretations of the Trinity have little problem reconciling the passages to their views. I am intrigued about the Social Trinitarian paradigm and believe in economical oneness but ontological threeness. I believe that God and man are the same species and reject creation ex nihilo and the resulting Creator/Creature gap. These aspects of my beliefs seem to be well attested (but not uniformally so) in the Early Church Fathers.

–fool

 

[mormon_fool]

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.

Thanks for pointing this out, seeems like a lot of Trinity proof-texters walk right into that one.

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

Joseph Smith probably saw little that was theological wrong and therefore didn’t feel the need to excise it. Let prophets do their job of providing a midrashic commentary (by far the main result of Joseph’s “translation” rather than it being an attempt to restore original readings) and the scholars do their job of detecting harmless forgeries.

–fool

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

mormon fool:

Thanks for pointing this out, seeems like a lot of Trinity proof-texters walk right into that one.

Doesn’t matter since JS accepted it as Scripture.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

mormon fool:

Justin Martyr is one of the best examples of a subordinationalist, see your own quote about Jesus is being in second place. Check out the Waltz article and Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Logos doctrine (which has John 1 as its best scripture tie in) for much more examples.

2nd place? If you actually read the quote you will see that he is talking about them in an equal sense. Thus, 2nd person is a better translation. It is ridiculous to say that Justin Martyr believed that there were 3 beings which made up the Godhead. You can’t prove that from any of his writings.

 

[mormon_fool]

Semper Fi:

Doesn’t matter since JS accepted it as Scripture.

As do I. However there are a number of reasons this scripture can not be used as a proof-text. First citing forgeries does not help us recover what the original author of the scripture’s intent in writing the passage. It is an anachronism that shows more advanced categorization than we find elsewhere in the Bible. When it comes to inter-faith proof texting we should focus on authentic passages that both sides can agree on, especially when the topic is how the Trinity doctrines developed over the years and the conspicuous lack of some concepts that Athananius and others introduced from the earliest manuscripts of the Bible.

So yes I would say it does matter.

–fool

 

[Catholic_Dude]

amgid:

Joseph Smith knew that the Father and the Son were two distinct and separate personages long before he had ever heard of the Book of Mormon.

Can you explain what this means from the BoM: 14 Behold, I am he who was aprepared from the foundation of the world to bredeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son.
(scriptures.lds.org/ether/3/14#14)
Also could we talk about the rest of post 15?

 

[majick275]

amgid:

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.

So that would make it 93% false. Of course there are many parts that are either reworded Biblical sayings and/or “inspired” by biblical scripture. in any case, the amount is irelevant to my point. (That being that the only parts of the BoM that are true are the paerts that are copied form the Bible.)

amgid:

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.

Please… Only LDS believe that. It makes it little different than the Quran, Baghavad-Gita, Popul-Vu, Book of the Dead… The list of manmade “scriptures” goes on.

amgid:

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.

I could but for time sake, why don’t you look up all of the places in the BoM where it says the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one God. (Just like in the statement of the witnesses) That’s a good start. If you read the ORIGINAL bography of Joseph Smith by his mother you will find his fathers dream and see how the begining of the BoM started. (JS sr. as Lehi, JS jr. as Nephi)

amgid:

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.

Well The Bible seems pretty clear that the Father , Son and Holy Spirit are One God. Of course so does the BoM and parts of the D&C. I don’t see anything in th eBible that would support a belief in eternal progression or evn modalism. The Mormon scriptures ahve changed over time and so has their meaning. Just compare the 1830-1833 “scriptures” with those of today. It’s not just gramar and punctuation. It’s obvious meaning.

amgid:

Support what view?

A Trinitarian view. I would point out though that JS original views on the Trinity appear to be modalistic.

amgid:

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.

Hmm. I thought I was saying that the BoM had numerous quotes from the Bible. I didn’t thinking I was restricting them to the Trinity. Anyway…irelevant. I said that the BoM appears to promote the idea of the Orthodox Trinity. (arguably it could be seen as modalistic) Moses in the PoGP gives a different view than Abraham which is different than what is taught today. Look at When these writings were published and the evolution of JS doctrinal views becomes very apparent.

(Continued in the next post…)

 

[majick275]

(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

I’m sure you believe these are significant but the fact is that the
BoM says in numerous placesa that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God. Not Godhead, Not one in purpose, One God. So does the JST Bible and the Book of Moses in PoGP. Only when we get to the obviously fradulent Book of Abraham do we get the henotheistic view taught today by the LDS.

 

[majick275]

(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

Like I said irelevant and certainly not proof of divine inspiration. The seventh day adventists and many others have done much the same.

 

[majick275]

(Continued from the previous post…)

We certainly do not! But we do believe in the same Trinity as the Bible. That is what the Book of Mormon Teaches. Those are two different things.

This was not meant to be a generalization of the LDS position but was a specific question to mormon fool about his own statement and personal beliefs.

amgid:

You seem to have gone right off you head with that one. The ORIGINAL position of the LDS church is the same as the CURRENT position. I don’t recall the LDS Church ever disowning the Book of Mormon! I assure you that we still very much believe in the Book of Mormon; and in the Trinitarian theology, as well as in every other theology that it teaches. But the Trinitarian theology it teaches is the Trinity of the Bible, not that of “orthodox” Christendom. That doctrine is unbiblical and false, and originates from the apostasy of the early Christian church. That is not what we believe in.

But if we look in the ORIGINAL BoM and Book of Commandments we see otherwise. What about the lectures on faith? They were canonized scripture for many years. (approved by common consent removed without it) They showed a Binitarian doctrine. The facts PROVE the Mormon doctrine on deity has changed drastically over the years.

amgid:

The theology of the Godhead (or Trinity as you call it) in the LDS Church has never changed. It may have developed and expanded as the Church progressed, and additional light and knowledge was received; but it has never “changed”.

Right… see above.

amgid:

Joseph Smith knew that the Father and the Son were two distinct and separate personages long before he had ever heard of the Book of Mormon. He acquired that knowledge from the First Vision, as follows:

JS-H 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!
Joseph Smith knew that long before he translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God. There has been no change in the theology of the godhead of the LDS Church.

amgid

and yet we have so many accounts of the “first vision” and the only one written in JS own hand seems to be a little different version. In anyt case please expalin the lectures on faith position then (Ias published in the D&C) that says there are two in the Godhead, the Father who is a personage of spirit and the son who has a tabernacle (body) and the Holy Ghost is their shared mind?
JS foolled alot of people with his con. He manipulatd them into giving him their wives and daughters, money and property. When he died By took up that game and wrote his own doctrine that was so offbeat that it’s disavowed by the LDS church today. The LDS teachings still don’t explain who/what the Holy Ghost is nor do they explain how he can be exalted without a body. It’s obvious to me that it’s all make believe.

The Bible is clear. There is only One God. Ever and always. No others before during or after. Father, Son and Holy Spirit have always been the only God anywher, anytime.

 

[mormon_fool]

Semper Fi:

2nd place? If you actually read the quote you will see that he is talking about them in an equal sense.

Try as I might, there is no way I can read this passage as implying equality. You suggest those clumsy traslators should have translated it “place” as “person”, but doing that the second usage renders: “we attribute to a crucified man a person second to the unchangeable and eternal God” makes no sense (“person” is not an attribute). Clearly “place” is in terms of ranking and is collaborated by Justin’s other writings.

I see that you haven’t dealt with any of Waltz’s other selected quotations of Justin, or the Catholic Encyclopedia, or (as near as I can tell) a scholarly consensus that Justin was a subordinationalist. I googled dozens of web sites and did not find a single one that defended Justin as not being a subordinationalist, If that doesn’t meet the bar of acceptable evidence, I don’t know what would. Here are some references, I hope we can all accept the facts and move on to more productive discussion.

1 By extension, the three Pneumas differentiated by Justin must be the same as God’s Pneuma since they originated from it. So they would be three aspects or functions within the unity of God’s substance. Such an interpretation can also be applied to the Greek divinities. But this point was not emphasized by Justin, on the contrary, he insisted on the subordination of these two Pneumas to the First Pneuma, God the Father. Thus there is no trace of the post-Nicaean Trinity in **Justin’s **writings understood as the triune divinity, but a hierarchically organized triad as he believed in only one God, God the Father. The Logos and the Holy Pneuma had subordinate ranks, being in the second and third place, respectively, and entirely dependent on the will of God the Father.
2 Justin further writes: “There is a second God after the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.”
Here we have a sharpe contradiction between the teachings of early Trinitarian Theology and the Trinitarian Theology of the fifth century. To Justin, Jesus is a second God who is in second place, (a subordinate less powerful position after the Father) and the Holy Spirit is in third place (a subordinate less powerful position after the Son).
3

• Although Justin argued that this emission does not entail any separation between Father and Son (as the analogy between human reason and its extrapolation in speech makes clear ), we can perceive here the rudiments of Arius’ doctrine, minus the 2 stage Logos (the first stage would have appeared Sabellian to him).
• Even though the Logos is “also God” he is only so as a “second God”, worshipped “in a secondary rank”, subordinate to the Father.

4
How do Catholics explain this type of language among the early Fathers? Father Jurgens admits that Justin “apparently [makes] insufficient distinction between Christ and the created Angels”, and he advises that we simply admit Justin was a subordinationist. "There are theological difficulties in the above passage, no doubt. But we wonder if those who make a great deal of these difficulties do not demand of Justin a theological sophistication which a man of his time and background could not rightly be expected to have."51

–fool

 

[Malachi4U]

BeluvdLily:

I heard tonight that the Catholic Church does not recognize Mormon baptism and that they do not believe in the Trinity. If not, who/what do they think Jesus was? I was really surprised by this. I do not know anything about the Mormon religion but just found it puzzling.

Amie

Mormons don’t believe in the Trinity, they believe in the INFINITY. That is, they believe in an inifinate number of gods not just one GOD. This makes them polytheists not monotheists. We, as Christians, specifically Catholic, believe in ONE GOD not gods.

 

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

Obviously portions of the BoM are true.

Agreed!

That is because much of it is copied from the Bible.
. . .
Merely that (since it copies extensively from the Bible) it is AS trinitarian.

The parts that are claimed to be more “Trinitarian” than the Bible are all in the clearly original parts of the Book of Mormon–the parts you’ve labeled 100% false. The Book of Mormon’s Trinitarianism can’t be said to be derived from the Bible.

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

You point out that Joseph Smith may have gotten Lehi’s vision from a similiar one had by his father. It is far more likely to me that his mother’s late-in-life retelling was influenced by the text in the previously published Book of Mormon. Whether this occurred because of memory augmentation or simply a desire to relate an experience in scriptural language, I can’t say, but either is more likely to me than Joseph Smith using it to construct a narrative.

As for where Joseph Smith got the Book of Mormon theology on the Godhead from, I think the BoM fits much better with pre-exilic Israel’s beliefs than it does 19th century Protestantism. Brant Gardner has convincingly demonstrated that to me here, using evidence from non-LDS Christian scholar Margaret Barker. Benjamin McGuire discussed the Book of Mormon’s take on the nature of God with the leading proponent of the Book of Mormon’s 19th century origins a year ago.

I don’t think anyone though thinks the BoM is MORE trinitarian than the Bible.

I hear this a lot, but I am pretty active in apologetics so it doesn’t surprise me I do so more than you. Try googling “more Trinitarian” and “Book of Mormon” and you will get a bunch of hits. Just for reference sake, a number of articles and book reviews have addressed the development of LDS teachings on the nature of God. 1 2 3

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?

It was just a plug for my favorite book. My position is that while the BoM could be used to support a more orthodox view of the Trinity, the best read of it supports the current mormon orthodoxy even better. I feel that there are a lot of nuances, details, and philosophy that theologians (LDS or other Christians) like to explore. They may use the scriptures as an inspirational launching off point, but they clearly go beyond the simplicity found in them.

–fool

 

[mormon_fool]

Malachi4U:

Mormons don’t believe in the Trinity, they believe in the INFINITY. That is, they believe in an inifinate number of gods not just one GOD. This makes them polytheists not monotheists.

I think mormonism defies categorization into polytheism or monothiesm (or any other category like heno-, catheno-, monist, etc.). There are a number of passages in LDS scripture that state we only believe in one God and that the Three personages of the Godhead are one God. LDS scriptures make assertions and we believe them, leaving the working out of underlying theology as an exercise to the student, although their has been some helpful treatments by LDS leaders and scholars along the way.

For Mormons, having multiple Gods would be as silly as having multiple mortal fathers. Our relationship just can’t be transferred to a being who may have similiar attributes (for example through deification) as our Heavenly Father, because that being is not our Creator. Therefore by most counts I am a monotheist. However I also believe in the theosis, so I recognize that all worthy followers will eventually become one with God the Father exactly like Jesus is now one with the Father. While those who achieve this might be called gods (for the lack of a better term), I would hold that this would be a different sense of the concept of “god”.

If the Catholic Church can claim not to be polytheistic considering that they also accept that man can become a god (CC #460), then so should the LDS Church. The Catholic church, as I understand it and welcome correction if I am wrong, holds there is a difference between God and such gods based on the Creator/Created gap. There is also such a gap in Mormon theology, only it would be a Created me/ Didn’t Create me gap.

-fool

 

[katewithak]

mormon fool:

Try as I might, there is no way I can read this passage as implying equality. You suggest those clumsy traslators should have translated it “place” as “person”, but doing that the second usage renders: “we attribute to a crucified man a person second to the unchangeable and eternal God” makes no sense (“person” is not an attribute). Clearly “place” is in terms of ranking and is collaborated by Justin’s other writings.

I see that you haven’t dealt with any of Waltz’s other selected quotations of Justin, or the Catholic Encyclopedia, or (as near as I can tell) a scholarly consensus that Justin was a subordinationalist. I googled dozens of web sites and did not find a single one that defended Justin as not being a subordinationalist, If that doesn’t meet the bar of acceptable evidence, I don’t know what would. Here are some references, I hope we can all accept the facts and move on to more productive discussion.

1 By extension, the three Pneumas differentiated by Justin must be the same as God’s Pneuma since they originated from it. So they would be three aspects or functions within the unity of God’s substance. Such an interpretation can also be applied to the Greek divinities. But this point was not emphasized by Justin, on the contrary, he insisted on the subordination of these two Pneumas to the First Pneuma, God the Father. Thus there is no trace of the post-Nicaean Trinity in **Justin’s **writings understood as the triune divinity, but a hierarchically organized triad as he believed in only one God, God the Father. The Logos and the Holy Pneuma had subordinate ranks, being in the second and third place, respectively, and entirely dependent on the will of God the Father.
[/indent

[*]Even though the Logos is “also God” he is only so as a “second God”, worshipped “in a secondary rank”, subordinate to the Father.

4

How do Catholics explain this type of language among the early Fathers? Father Jurgens admits that Justin “apparently [makes] insufficient distinction between Christ and the created Angels”, and he advises that we simply admit Justin was a subordinationist. "There are theological difficulties in the above passage, no doubt. But we wonder if those who make a great deal of these difficulties do not demand of Justin a theological sophistication which a man of his time and background could not rightly be expected to have."51

–fool
​

RAnkings according to the Roman Catholic Catechism:

**C. Para. 253: The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the “consubstantial Trinity” (Council of Constantinople II [553]: DS 421). The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: “The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e., by nature one God” (Council of Toledo XI [675]: DS 530:26). In the words of the Fourth Latern Council (1215): “Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature” (Latern Council IV [1215]: DS 804). **​

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Malachi4U:

Mormons don’t believe in the Trinity, they believe in the INFINITY. That is, they believe in an inifinate number of gods not just one GOD. This makes them polytheists not monotheists. We, as Christians, specifically Catholic, believe in ONE GOD not gods.

They are not polytheists. They are henotheists.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

mormon fool:

I think mormonism defies categorization into polytheism or monothiesm (or any other category like heno-, catheno-, monist, etc.). There are a number of passages in LDS scripture that state we only believe in one God and that the Three personages of the Godhead are one God. LDS scriptures make assertions and we believe them, leaving the working out of underlying theology as an exercise to the student, although their has been some helpful treatments by LDS leaders and scholars along the way.

fool,

mormonism certainly does fit into the category of henotheism. you acknowledge more than one deity, but worship one (according to current mormon doctrine). to be a henotheist means that you acknowledge other gods but only worship the one god.

 

[Brad_Haas]

Note to Catholics: I would ask that you not refer to Joseph Smith as “Joe Smith.” I used to do it sometimes, but I realized that it probably comes across as condescending and belittling. Even if you disagree as much as I do (around 10,000%) with many of the things he taught, giving him a pet name isn’t a good way to foster charitable discussion. It’s like if a non-Catholic called Jesus “Jebus,” or called John Paul II “Pope Jack” or something.

 

[mormon_fool]

Semper Fi:

fool,

mormonism certainly does fit into the category of henotheism. you acknowledge more than one deity, but worship one (according to current mormon doctrine). to be a henotheist means that you acknowledge other gods but only worship the one god.

My remarks about catholicism apply here. I think it is safe to say that some documents state a belief in God (in the Trinity) and yet other documents disscuss the possibility of men becoming gods. Using this vocabulary some outsider who didn’t understand how catholics use these terms might very well say “Aha worship one God but acknoweledging multiple gods, they must be henotheist.” But catholics would disagree and show us that the underlying concepts are really monotheistic. (I hope I understand this right)

Calling mormons henotheistic is wrong or problematic for similiar reasons! Indeed I can cite any number of scholars, non-mormon or otherwise who disagree that mormons should be classed as henotheists. If you actually study religions that are solidly henotheistic, you will see that there are profound differences between them and mormonism or catholicism.

–mormon “don’t call me henotheist ” fool