Refutation of Mormons objection the the Trinity

[thephilosopher6]

Scholars have long acknowledged that the view of God held by the earliest Christians changed dramatically over the course of centuries. Early Christian views of God were more personal, more anthropomorphic, and less abstract than those that emerged later during Christianity’s creedal stage. The key ideological shift that began in the second century, after the loss of apostolic authority, resulted from a conceptual merger of Christian doctrine with Greek philosophy.

Latter-day Saints believe the melding of early Christian theology with Greek philosophy was a grave error. Chief among the doctrines lost in this process was the nature of the Godhead. Latter-day Saints hold that God the Father is an embodied being with the attributes ascribed by the earliest Christians. That belief is consistent with the early Christian views of God, yet it differs from the later creeds.

(lds.org/topics/god-the-father?lang=eng)

This is a common Mormon objection to the Trinity. The funny thing is is that nowhere in these two paragraphs is any credible information or sources given. Not one scholar’s name is given, not one early Church Father is cited, not one Biblical verse is used to back their claims up. It’s nothing more than a claim with absolutely nothing to back it up. Of course, Mormons seem to be really good at making claims with nothing to back it up.

I will take it upon myself to refute these two paragraphs, and I also hope to see other jump in and add anything they like to help show the absurdity of Mormonism and it beliefs.

Now, it is claimed that by the second century, Christianity lost its apostolic authority and began merging Christianity with Greek philosophy. However, by the second century we know of at least three Church Fathers who were actual disciples of the apostles. They notably include Polycarp (John), Ignatius of Antioch (John), and Clement of Rome (Peter). Now, let’s see what some of them had to say about God and the Trinity.

*“Our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Spirit.” - Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Ephesians 18) [110 A.D]

“To the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God” - Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Ephesians 1) [110 A.D]

“Now may God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal priest himself, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, build you up in faith and truth… to all under heaven who shall believe in our Lord Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead.” - Polycarp to the Philippians [120 A.D]

“I praise you for all things, I bless you, I glorify you, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, with whom, to you and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen” - Polycarp (Martyrdom of Polycarp [150 A.D])
*
It seems pretty clear to me that these guys believed in the Trinity and the incarnation. In addition, we have other early Church from even before these men supporting the Trinity.

*“And further, my brethren, if the Lord [Jesus] endured to suffer for our soul, he being the Lord of all the world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, ‘Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness,’ understand how it was that he endured to suffer at the hand of men” - Letter of Barnabas [75 A.D]

“The Son of God is older than all his creation, so that he became the Father’s adviser in his creation. Therefore also he is ancient” - The Shepherd of Hermas 12 [85 A.D]*

In addition to this, we have Early Church Fathers, notably Irenaeus who was a disciple of Polycarp, support the Trinity and divinity of Christ.

*“The Father of the universe has a Son, who also being the first begotten Word of God, is even God.” - Justin Martyr (First Apology [150 A.D])

“Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts.” - Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho [150 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” Justin Martyr (First Apology [151 A.D])

“It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place. . . . The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God, his Word, and his Wisdom” - Theophilus of Antioch (To Autolycus [181 A.D])

"…and the raising up again of all flesh of all humanity, in order that to Jesus Christ our Lord and God and Savior and King, in accord with the approval of the invisible Father, every knee shall bend of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth . . . " - Irenaeus (Against Heresies [189 A.D])

“The origins of both his substances display him as man and as God: from the one, born, and from the other, not born” - Tertullian (The Flesh of Christ [210 A.D])*

 

[thephilosopher6]

*“We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, oikonomia, there is also a Son of this one only God, his Word, who proceeded from him and through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made. . . . We believe he was sent down by the Father, in accord with his own promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. . . . This rule of faith has been present since the beginning of the gospel, before even the earlier heretics” - Tertullian (Against Praxeas 2 [235 A.D])

“Although he was God, he took flesh; and having been made man, he remained what he was: God” - Origen (The Fundamental Doctrines [225 A.D])

“The Word alone of this God is from God himself, wherefore also the Word is God, being the being of God. Now the world was made from nothing, wherefore it is not God” - Hippolytus (Refutation of All Heresies [230 A.D])*

It is plainly clear that the early Church believed in one God as a Trinity and that the Son became incarnate as Jesus Christ. The concept of the Mormon “godhead” can not be found in the early Church. The early Church is monotheistic and the “godhead” is blasphemy. Indeed, Greek Philosophy may have been used to better explain the Trinity, even the Bible itself uses Greek Philosophy. The Concept of the Logos in the Gospel of John is a Greek Philosophical concept. The Stoics believed it to be active reason pervading in the universe. It was identified as God (in a pantheistic way). Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenized Jew, believed the Logos to be an intermediate being between God and the material world. The very concept of Jesus as the Word of God is from Greek Philosophy that some second temple Jews and early Christians adopted and it’s the central theme of Johns Gospel. Not only that but even Paul the Apostle uses Greek philosophy and he even quotes Greek poets and philosophers.

 

[thephilosopher6]

*"…for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children." - Acts 17:28

“One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: ‘Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” - Titus 1:12 *

Paul even uses the beliefs of the people to convince them of God.

“For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship–and this is what I am going to proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands.” - Acts 17:22-23

The Church has always taught the Trinity. She has never lost apostolic authority. Irenaeus has a lot to say about apostolic tradition.

*“Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time” - Irenaeus (Against Heresies [189 A.D])

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” - Irenaeus (Against Heresies [189 A.D])*

“*t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth” - Irenaeus (Against Heresies [189 A.D])

“Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. . . . For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?” - Irenaeus (Against Heresies [189 A.D])*

Do you also not know that Christ promised to protect the Church from error?

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” - Matthew 16:18

So, Mormonism has been refuted. I will end this off with some Biblical verses about the Trinity and the oneness of God.

 

[thephilosopher6]

*“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” Matthew 28:19

“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.” - 2 Corinthians 13:14

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” - John 1:1

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” - John 1:14

“Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” - Philippians 2:5-8

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” - Colossians 1:15-17

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” - Revelation 22:13

“But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” - Titus 3:4-7

“Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” - Romans 10:9

“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” - John 8:58

"But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.” - Hebrews 1:8

“I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me,” - Isaiah 45:5

“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” - Deuteronomy 6:4

"Jesus replied,’“This is the most important: ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is One Lord,’” - Mark 12:29

“You shall have no other gods before me.” - Exodus 20:3
*

 

[thephilosopher6]

I would just also like to quickly note that the Council of Nicaea did not in anyway create the Trinity. The Council wasn’t even about the Trinity as a whole but rather was over the divinity of Christ which Arius denied. The very fact that there was so much weight and controversy behind Arius heretical doctrines is because the doctrine of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ had been well established throughout the entire Church. The Council of Nicaea did not in anyway create the doctrine of the Trinity, but rather is re-affirmed it.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I think many Mormons are moral, upstanding people. But for the life of me, their religion just seems so…bizarre to me. Of course, those raised Mormon probably feel the same way about us Catholics.

 

[thephilosopher6]

I think many Mormons are moral, upstanding people. But for the life of me, their religion just seems so…bizarre to me. Of course, those raised Mormon probably feel the same way about us Catholics.

Perhaps. But it has been shown that Catholicism is true, and Mormonism is not.

 

[pianistclare]

Perhaps. But it has been shown that Catholicism is true, and Mormonism is not.

So, why are you so worked up about what they believe? You have a Mormon girlfriend?

 

[thephilosopher6]

So, why are you so worked up about what they believe? You have a Mormon girlfriend?

Because I have taken it upon myself to refute heresy just as Irenaeus did.

 

[pianistclare]

So you’re posting it all on a Catholic site?
Are you planning on writing a book maybe?
I’m not sure there are many practicing Mormons here. Many ex-Mormons though.

 

[Tarquin]

Latter-day Saints believe the melding of early Christian theology with Greek philosophy was a grave error. Chief among the doctrines lost in this process was the nature of the Godhead. Latter-day Saints hold that God the Father is an embodied being with the attributes ascribed by the earliest Christians. That belief is consistent with the early Christian views of God, yet it differs from the later creeds.

I also hope to see other jump in and add anything they like to help show the absurdity of Mormonism and it beliefs.

Now, it is claimed that by the second century, Christianity lost its apostolic authority and began merging Christianity with Greek philosophy.

From my perspective, the LDS are wrong in thinking that the Israelites had an adequately developed theology. Jewish beliefs about God, i.e. theology, were skeletal. The terminology and reasoning of the Hellenists provided the muscles and sinew of Christian theology. God became more than “God”, more than “Trinity”. Through Hellinism’s philosophical contribution, Christians were able to describe God more scientifically. My first experience with this was reading texts on Scholastic Theology. Without the Hellenists, I don’t know what our concept of God would be like today. Although some people back then and still today believe that Hellenism mixing with Hebrewism evidenced a failure of Hebrewism, I think that the two combined to produce fertile soil for the development of Christian theology.

The Jews believed God was limited in some if not many respects. Hellenistic philosophy argued for an Original God who was unconditioned, independent, unitary, with “central” characteristics existing in a perfection of harmony. So that one could say that “God’s truth is God’s beauty, God’s beauty is God’s goodness, God’s goodness is God’s truth.” The Bible says “God is Love.” It would be equally correct to say “God is Beauty” and “God is goodness” and “God is righteous Desire” and so on. The injection of Greek philosophy enriched our understanding of the Ultimate God. I’m talking too much about something I don’t know that much about, so may be making some mistakes. I apologize.

I can no longer agree that the LDS have a sound argument when they say one of the “doctrines” that was lost was “the nature of the Godhead.” The quote in the opening post said, “Latter-day Saints hold that God the Father is an embodied being with the attributes ascribed by the earliest Christians.” There is a terrible problem here for Mormons. First of all, **they need to explain how they determine which passages must be taken literally, and which passages are, as Jesus said, given “in signs and symbols.” **I think attributing “wings” to God is one of those places to be taken symbolically. I would be surprised to hear someone disagree.

Then there is a larger problem. When it comes to the Old Testament - and Jehovah, remember him? - Mormons say that “Jehovah” is “Jesus Christ”. So any attributes given to Jehovah are actually attributes of Jesus, from the Mormon perspective. So any reference to Jehovah’s body parts in the Old Testament are references to the body of Jesus. It may be that some Mormons don’t believe this, or that the Church no longer teaches it, but I don’t think so. lds.org/manual/jesus-christ-and-the-everlasting-gospel-teacher-manual/lesson-5-jesus-christ-was-jehovah-of-the-old-testament?lang=eng Lds.org includes the following in the introduction to John 8:

Jesus says, Before Abraham was I, Jehovah.

As for **New Testament **descriptions of God that Mormons believe support their view of “the Godhead,” I think I would have to address them one at a time, as they are cited. I did not find any verses given when I made a brief search at lds.org.

 

[RPRPsych]

So, why are you so worked up about what they believe? You have a Mormon girlfriend?

Because I have taken it upon myself to refute heresy just as Irenaeus did.

A worthy task, but aren’t there already apologists who address this issue from the Catholic as well as the Evangelical sides? Not trying to discourage you, but just pointing out that reinventing the wheel may not help. Are you adding in anything that they’ve left out or haven’t thought of?

 

[thephilosopher6]

So you’re posting it all on a Catholic site?
Are you planning on writing a book maybe?
I’m not sure there are many practicing Mormons here. Many ex-Mormons though.

Yeah, there are plenty of Mormons on here and not only that it could help Catholics refute them. And lol… maybe I’ll write a book:thumbsup:

 

[thephilosopher6]

A worthy task, but aren’t there already apologists who address this issue from the Catholic as well as the Evangelical sides? Not trying to discourage you, but just pointing out that reinventing the wheel may not help. Are you adding in anything that they’ve left out or haven’t thought of?

No, not necessarily. But I was a heretic myself at one time, and now that I’m back in the Church I feel as if God has given me a mission to refute heresy and help correct and guide heretics to the truth.

 

[Anthony_V]

No, not necessarily. But I was a heretic myself at one time, and now that I’m back in the Church I feel as if God has given me a mission to refute heresy and help correct and guide heretics to the truth.

Ah, the zeal of fresh conversion.

Friend, you haven’t exactly concealed the hook with the bait on this one. Really, you might consider going to another forum than CAF. Threads on Mormonism here tend towards beating a dead horse – which was originally stuck in a barrel with a fish. And the beating only starts when people run out of ammunition. It’s almost not fair. It was complicated getting the horse into the barrel to begin with.

(It turns out horses are afraid of fish. We considered putting the horse in first, but the fish wouldn’t fit.)

 

[RPRPsych]

No, not necessarily. But I was a heretic myself at one time, and now that I’m back in the Church I feel as if God has given me a mission to refute heresy and help correct and guide heretics to the truth.

That’s a good answer!

 

[gazelam]

The New Testament itself is far from any doctrine of the Trinity or of a triune God who is three co-equal Persons of One Nature. William J. Hill, The Three-Personed God (Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1982), 27.

*There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. *
Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 44

There is in them [the Apostolic Fathers], of course, no trinitarian doctrine and no awareness of a trinitarian problem. JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, revised edition, (New York: Harper, 1978), 95.

 

[TOmNossor]

This is a common Mormon objection to the Trinity. The funny thing is is that nowhere in these two paragraphs is any credible information or sources given. Not one scholar’s name is given, not one early Church Father is cited, not one Biblical verse is used to back their claims up. It’s nothing more than a claim with absolutely nothing to back it up. Of course, Mormons seem to be really good at making claims with nothing to back it up.

The Philospher,
It seems the premise of this thread is that there is NOTHING to support the LDS view. Instead, it would seem you are arguing that the doctrine of the Trinity (including all the impassibility, non-anthropomorphic, and other philosophical concepts) was obvious from the beginning.
Is that a correct understanding of your position?

Before I studied these questions with philosophy in mind, my historical studies demonstrated that your premise (if I understand correctly) was and is false. Understanding the philosophy provides a lot of data for better contextualizing the history and complements IMO the position espoused by LDS.

In just a few words, Gazelem has already demonstrated that your premise (if I have properly understood it) is false.

I will offer a few more things.

You quoted Justin Martyr in your appeal the ECF. Here are some words from Justin Martyr:

Justin_Martyr:

Then I replied, “I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things — above whom there is no other God — wishes to announce to them.” (Dialogue With Trypho, ch. 56 – ANF 1.223.)

Justin_Martyr:

Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, andholding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed. (First Apology, ch. 13 – ANF 1.166, 167; see also ch. 60.)

You also mentioned Tertullian:
Tertullian:

I confess that I call God and His Word — the Father and His Son —two. For the root and the tree are distinctly two things, but correlatively joined; the fountain and the river are also two forms, but indivisible; so likewise the sun and the ray are two forms, but coherent ones. Everything which proceeds from something else must needs be second to that from which it proceeds, without being on that account separated: Where, however, there is a second, there must be two; and where there is a third, there must be three. Now the Spirit indeed is third from God and the Son; just as the fruit of the tree is third from the root, or as the stream out of the river is third from the fountain, or as the apex of the ray is third from the sun. Nothing, however, is alien from that original source whence it derives its own properties. In like manner the Trinity, flowing down from the Father through intertwined and connected steps, does not at all disturb theMonarchy, whilst it at the same time guards the state of the Economy. (Against Praxeas, ch. 8 – ANF 3.603.)

The thing about the BULK of your quotes is that they do not refute LDS thought at all. LDS believe Christ is God. They even believe God is one. They like Tertullian and Justin and Origin and … also believe God is two (or three when we expand our view outside of Father and Son to Holy Spirit). They just do not believe the DEVELOPED theology as to how to define the oneness of God. You say the Trinity was not invented at Nicea, you are correct. The Trinity was DEVELOPED over many centuries. While most Bishops were Semi-Arians for a few decades after Nicea, the general shape of the Trinity had taken hold towards the end of the fourth century. AND truth be told, the Filoque clause is intimately related to the doctrine of the Trinity as are some Catholic (western) controversies from the 10th century or so. The Trinity is in fact still DEVELOPING.

Let me ask you, would a MODERN Catholic speak of a “second God” or a God in the “second place.” Would they call God, “two?” It is the Catholic who has left behind St. Justin Martyr and Tertullian.

cont …

 

[TOmNossor]

It would also seem that even with your focus on the Trinity, you didn’t address part of what that LDS quote was asserting, “Early Christian views of God were more personal, more anthropomorphic, and less abstract than those that emerged later during Christianity’s creedal stage.” This statement is really not so much commenting on the Trinity as it is commenting on the philosophical controversies that lead to the DEVELOPMENT of the Trinity.
As the Alexandrian school of thought won over against the Antiochian school of thought, the problem of how Christ could be divine became much bigger in the early church.
The absolute oneness of God was only part of the issues that necessitated the development of the Trinity.
Gazelem’s tagline expresses well another part. When Serpion was told that he should no longer think of God as he had for his whole life he like many resisted this CHANGE. But, becoming convinced that his view was wrong Serpion accepted the teaching. When Serpion then tried to pray, he broke down in tears exclaiming, “Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, and I have none to grasp, and I know not whom to adore or to address.” There are clearly more ancient views than those from Serpion or his new teachers on both sides of this question, but this IMO is a big deal.
Linked with this is the impassibility of God that I find particularly problematic. Here is a thread started by Gazelem:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13595298&highlight=weinandy#post13595298
If you want to sink your teeth in philosophy and how it relates to theology and the Trinity, the impassibility of God is huge. On the linked thread no Catholics dealt with Father Weinandy’s thesis. Here is a quick quote from Weinandy:

The preaching of God’s love is done in ways that those who hear it celebrate it. But among theologians, this “love” is not the same as the two way communion that happens between a human father and a human son that we call love. God cannot and does not love like this in Patristic Thought.

Here is a Catholic author’s assessment AND rejection of the trend Dr. Paulsen refers too:
firstthings.com/article/2001/11/does-god-suffer

Do not get hung up on the “SUFFER” word here. LDS would acknowledge that in a sense God does not suffer. But as Father Weinandy says, “From the dawn of the Patristic period Christian theology has held as axiomatic that God is impassible—that is, He does not undergo emotional changes of state, and so cannot suffer.”
To be “impassible” is to be “void of passion.”
To better understand Weinandy, I read his book of the same title and The Suffering of the Impassible God: The Dialectics of Patristic Thought (Oxford Early Christian Studies) by Gavrilyuk.
I think divine impassibility is essential to the debates on the Trinity. I also think it is false. Weinandy says, “Toward the end of the nineteenth century a sea change began to occur within Christian theology such that at present many, if not most, Christian theologians hold as axiomatic that God is passible, that He does undergo emotional changes of states, and so can suffer.” I believe this change is a positive, but it also unmoors those theologians from many of the considerations the ECF pondered upon as they developed the doctrine of the Trinity.

It is my assessment from reading history and philosophy, that a strong case can be made for the idea that the Early Christians held many beliefs LDS hold. I unlike some LDS and some Christians do not believe philosophy is of the devil, but philosophy devoid of guidance from God via revelation can corrupt God’s truth.
Charity, TOm

 

[gazelam]

I don’t have time to examine each and every ECF quote listed by the OP, but will say that several of them are in line with LDS belief. I will address the doctrine of how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one.

Orthodox Christianity says that the Three are “consubstantial”, of the same substance or essence and that is one aspect where LDS disagrees with orthodox Christianity.

LDS believe that the oneness is of purpose, not of substance.

John 10:30 The Father and I are one.

John 17:20, 21 states the nature of the oneness.

I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.

Jesus is clearly praying for a oneness of the believers that is identical to the oneness of the Father and the Son. Since the believers can’t become consubstantial with each other, the Father and the Son are not consubstantial with each other either.

The Bible gives us good examples of the oneness that is meant.

Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Even though husband and wife are referred to as “one flesh”, they are still two distinct, non-consubstantial beings.

1 Corinthians 3:8,9 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.

The laborers in God’s kingdom are referred to as “one”, but they are distinct non-consubstantial beings, as are the Father and the Son.

Quoting an ECF, Hippolytus stated:
Understand that He [Jesus] did not say “I and the Father am one, but are one. For the word are is not said of one person, but it refers to two persons, and one power. He has himself made this clear, when He spoke to His Father concerning the disciples, “The glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.”… Are all one body in respect of substance, or is it that we become one in the power and disposition of unity of mind? (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 5:226)

The doctrine of the Trinity clearly has issues…