Refutation of Mormons objection the the Trinity

[TOmNossor]

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.

I do believe “refuting Mormons” is something best done among Mormons, but I think “shooting fish in a barrel” (and I realize that is possibly intended as a profound insult towards the theology I embrace) is really ThePhilosopher6’s purpose.

One of my main purposes here is to refute views like what I think I see from thePhilosopher6’s. He quoted the LDS.org website and suggested that there was no basis in history/fact/philosophy for the position there espoused. I believe only those who confine themselves to discussions in an echo chamber like Catholic Answers can hold such a view.

My prescription for thephilospher6 is to respectfully take his “refuting” to a LDS site. I cannot remember if I can offer a link, but my favorite is called mormondialogue. Oh, and as long as you are respectful, you can post things like, “the reason you should be Catholic is xyz.” Totally fine!
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

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.

Tarquin,
I think your criticism cuts much harder upon the Catholic than the LDS and it is even more problematic for much of Protestantism.

How do LDS know that God the Father is an embodied being? Because we believe our leaders receive revelation from God and this revelation has affirmed this view for us.

How do Catholics know that the Antiochian school of thought (every bit as ancient as the Alexandrian school of thought) was wrong? You do not believe that revelation continued for the leading of the church, just that some divinely sanctioned infallibility preserved truth. This view in a divinely sanctioned infallibility to correctly DEVELOP theological truth is itself a development.

The LDS view that God leads His people through folks who receive revelation and can write scripture is the view present in the Old Testament and in the New Testament.

Charity, TOm

 

[lax16]

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

I felt the same way after reading early Church history. Still do as a matter of fact.

Keep up the good work!

 

[adamhovey1988]

 

[kdbueno]

Mormons supposes that you are with the one true God which is themselves.

This is not possible by reason that the one true God has only one divine aspect in terms of enginery and mechanics of divine and true observability.

 

[TOmNossor]

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.

Gazelam,
I agree with the above when it comes to what the word “consubstantial” has come to mean within Catholic discourse, but a LDS would be quite comfortable in general saying that the Father and the Son are “consubstantial” just like two men are “consubstantial.” This is a very acceptable meaning of the Greek word “homoousian” translated as “consubstantial.”
I believe “orthodox” Christianity had lots of poor options as they tried to reconcile aspects of Jewish and Christian belief into philosophically precise language.
At Nicea the moderate party proposed that the definition use just scriptural (generally scriptural as the canon was not fixed) language. The Arians seemed to be amenable to this and thus the Athanasian party rejected it. The word “homoousian” was not acceptable to the Arians and it was chosen.
Of course the reason “homoousian” was not acceptable to the Arians was because they knew it had been used by the Sabellians and condemned at the Synod of Antioch in 268. “Orthodox” and “heritic” agreed upon a modalist definition of “homoousian” in 268AD and it was condemned by the “orthodox.”
At Nicea “homoousian” was rejuvenated and became orthodox again. Among the Bishops who accepted the Nicene definition, many, Eusebius of Caesarea (the church historian, not Eusebius of Nicomedia) being one, used the term to mean that God the Father and God the Son were homoousian like a human father and son are homoousian. Some, Athanasius almost certainly, used the term in a way that is inconsistent with a human father and son being homoousian, but he did call those who understood it differently his brothers.
The term homoousian is now regular used as Athanasius and Augustine used it. Most Catholics today would balk at the idea that a human father and son were homoousian.
All that being said, the Council of Chalcedon needed the word homoousian and used it like Eusebius did and if you believe modern Catholics (like Dr. Daniel Keating) ALSO like Athanasius did.
So, as a LDS, I have no problem believing that God the Father and God the Son are consubstantial, just like Eusebius did. I have no problem rejecting the oneness of Sabellius. I struggle to even understand precisely what is being asserted by the modern Catholic when modalism is rejected and homoousian is used like Augustine and most modern Catholics do.

Oh and if you think this is the end of the mess, we can talk about Nicea saying that anyone who claims God the Father and God the Son are different “persons” (greek word, “hypostasis”) is a heretic. “Hypostasis” of course has come be the orthodox word for the three persons. Again only bad choices when these philosophically precise words were married to theology …

Perhaps it is Catholicism that is hopelessly ridiculous after all! BTW, I do not believe that, I just think that one can poke so hard on Catholic theology that it doesn’t work which is different from being ridiculous.

Charity, TOm

 

[gazelam]

Gazelam,
I agree with the above when it comes to what the word “consubstantial” has come to mean within Catholic discourse, but a LDS would be quite comfortable in general saying that the Father and the Son are “consubstantial” just like two men are “consubstantial.” This is a very acceptable meaning of the Greek word “homoousian” translated as “consubstantial.”
I believe “orthodox” Christianity had lots of poor options as they tried to reconcile aspects of Jewish and Christian belief into philosophically precise language.
At Nicea the moderate party proposed that the definition use just scriptural (generally scriptural as the canon was not fixed) language. The Arians seemed to be amenable to this and thus the Athanasian party rejected it. The word “homoousian” was not acceptable to the Arians and it was chosen.
Of course the reason “homoousian” was not acceptable to the Arians was because they knew it had been used by the Sabellians and condemned at the Synod of Antioch in 268. “Orthodox” and “heritic” agreed upon a modalist definition of “homoousian” in 268AD and it was condemned by the “orthodox.”
At Nicea “homoousian” was rejuvenated and became orthodox again. Among the Bishops who accepted the Nicene definition, many, Eusebius of Caesarea (the church historian, not Eusebius of Nicomedia) being one, used the term to mean that God the Father and God the Son were homoousian like a human father and son are homoousian. Some, Athanasius almost certainly, used the term in a way that is inconsistent with a human father and son being homoousian, but he did call those who understood it differently his brothers.
The term homoousian is now regular used as Athanasius and Augustine used it. Most Catholics today would balk at the idea that a human father and son were homoousian.
All that being said, the Council of Chalcedon needed the word homoousian and used it like Eusebius did and if you believe modern Catholics (like Dr. Daniel Keating) ALSO like Athanasius did.
So, as a LDS, I have no problem believing that God the Father and God the Son are consubstantial, just like Eusebius did. I have no problem rejecting the oneness of Sabellius. I struggle to even understand precisely what is being asserted by the modern Catholic when modalism is rejected and homoousian is used like Augustine and most modern Catholics do.

Oh and if you think this is the end of the mess, we can talk about Nicea saying that anyone who claims God the Father and God the Son are different “persons” (greek word, “hypostasis”) is a heretic. “Hypostasis” of course has come be the orthodox word for the three persons. Again only bad choices when these philosophically precise words were married to theology …

Perhaps it is Catholicism that is hopelessly ridiculous after all! BTW, I do not believe that, I just think that one can poke so hard on Catholic theology that it doesn’t work which is different from being ridiculous.

Charity, TOm

I appreciate the short history lesson. Thanks.

 

[NeuroTypical]

Just wanted to pop in and express gratitude to CAF, for allowing reasoned, civil response from Mormons. Not every faith-based message board allows such things.

 

[Hatikvah]

Personally, I’d figure the idea that the entire Church in the form of an ecumenical council can get something so important as the nature of God Himself, the very object of worship, wrong.

That’s madness, but that’s just me.

 

[Hatikvah]

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.

If you don’t mind my asking, in what capacity were you a heretic? Was it as a Catholic who deliberately misinterpreted doctrine, a schismatic-heretic, or something else?

 

[Michael68]

If you don’t mind my asking, in what capacity were you a heretic? Was it as a Catholic who deliberately misinterpreted doctrine, a schismatic-heretic, or something else?

If you don’t mind me aking, do you only rely on your fallible interpretation?

 

[adamhovey1988]

If you don’t mind my asking, in what capacity were you a heretic? Was it as a Catholic who deliberately misinterpreted doctrine, a schismatic-heretic, or something else?

That’s a good question, because it’s my understanding that someone who has always held an errant belief is not a heretic. For example, a Catholic that decides to become Protestant, would be guilty of heresy (if they knew they were holding a heresy and refused to be corrected) but their children, if they are raised Protestant from the get-go, really wouldn’t be heretics. If I am wrong, then I would appreciate a correction.

 

[Hatikvah]

If you don’t mind me aking, do you only rely on your fallible interpretation?

Sorry, Michael – that’s irrelevant to this. I was trying to respectfully ask ThePhilosopher about what it was that was heresy in his case. I wasn’t challenging the notion of heresy nor Catholicism (in fact, I never have here: that would be foolish).

This thread isn’t the place for such a conversation, and I don’t seek one like that either.

 

[Michael68]

Sorry, Michael – that’s irrelevant to this. I was trying to respectfully ask ThePhilosopher about what it was that was heresy in his case. I wasn’t challenging the notion of heresy nor Catholicism (in fact, I never have here: that would be foolish).

This thread isn’t the place for such a conversation, and I don’t seek one like that either.

I took offense to your post as most Catholics would. Carry on

 

[Hatikvah]

I took offense to your post as most Catholics would. Carry on

How so? I didn’t intend any offensive material, and I apologize in such an instance. I wasn’t even saying that Catholicism is heretical. I was asking ThePhilosopher what was heretical in his beliefs which he himself stated was heretical.

I’m not arguing anything, I was asking a question. No disrespect intended.

 

[Stephen168]

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.

Mormon Doctrine:

It should be evident to everyone who has even a casual knowledge of God, the gospel, and the laws of salvation, that philosophy is in effect a religion which, ruling out revelation, attempts to decide eternal realities by reason alone.

Greek Philosophy seems to be a Mormon bogeyman but none have ever been able to give an example of its influence on Christian thought in the first four centuries.

Christians used concepts that were originally not hebrew, but these concepts had been making there way into Jewish culture through Greek speaking Alexandria, home of the septuagint, for about a century before Christ. Some scholars believe they influenced some of the New Testament writings, including Paul. Considering most of the New Testament was originally written in Greek, I’m inclined to agree. Therefore, evil Greek culture (philosophy/language/scripture) was already part of the Jewish culture of the first Christians.

On the other hand, some scholars have claimed Mormonism is more of a restoration of pagan Greek culture.
Like Mormons the Greek culture believed:
-Gods took human form (flesh and bone)
-There are many Gods
-Godlike beings who used pre-existent matter to make the world.
-the soul pre-existed before it was born mortal.

Christianity started with first century Judaism in a place where Greek was the lingua franca. Where there is one God, who created everything out of nothing. The Word was God. His Word taught us the beatific vision and gave us the Eucharist. By his example and the example of the Apostles we learn that not being married is the best state for the Priesthood and all men are created equal.

The Trinity is the reasoned understanding that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, yet there is one God. Over time, Joseph Smith rejected the Christian God, and changed the Book of Mormon to align with his new polytheism.

 

[Hatikvah]

Over time, Joseph Smith rejected the Christian God, and changed the Book of Mormon to align with his new polytheism.

\

I knew that Joseph Smith (and later, the LDS Church in part) changed the Book of Mormon, but where did Joseph Smith change it to include polytheism? The Book of Mormon seems to be more in line with the Bible than with Mormonism (oddly), though they have some important distinctions.

But where is polytheism in the Book of Mormon? The doctrine of eternal progression isn’t included in there, that was a later development… correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[Stephen168]

\

I knew that Joseph Smith (and later, the LDS Church in part) changed the Book of Mormon, but where did Joseph Smith change it to include polytheism? The Book of Mormon seems to be more in line with the Bible than with Mormonism (oddly), though they have some important distinctions.

But where is polytheism in the Book of Mormon? The doctrine of eternal progression isn’t included in there, that was a later development… correct me if I’m wrong.

Polytheism is not in the Book of Mormon. Polytheism requires the rejection of any reference to the Father and the Son as one being; the Trinity. For example, the original Book of Mormon referred to Mary as the Mother of God which is a Trinitarian statement. After Joseph Smith introduced eternal progression/polytheism, the Book of Mormon was changed to refer to Mary as the mother of the son of god. There are many examples of these changes.

The purpose being to ensure the Book of Mormon does not conflict with Joseph Smith’s new teaching, not to actually teach it in the Book of Mormon.

 

[jane_doe]

\

I knew that Joseph Smith (and later, the LDS Church in part) changed the Book of Mormon, but where did Joseph Smith change it to include polytheism? The Book of Mormon seems to be more in line with the Bible than with Mormonism (oddly), though they have some important distinctions.

But where is polytheism in the Book of Mormon? The doctrine of eternal progression isn’t included in there, that was a later development… correct me if I’m wrong.

You are correct: there is to polytheism in the Book of Mormon.

You are also correct that understanding of eternal progression was later.

Mormons do not view ourselves as polytheists, holding vast to the idea of the Father, Son, and Spirit being one united God (despite being different individuals not of shared substance).

 

[thephilosopher6]

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:

You also mentioned Tertullian:

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 …

Where in those quote by Tertullian does he say that the Son is a second god? Or the Holy Spirit is third god? What Tertullian say is in full agreement with the doctrine of the Trinity. They believe God is one and three. There is nothing to suggest anything like the Mormon “godhead.” The heretical belief that there are three beings but one purpose. The early Church recognized the existence of one God, who was three persons. The early Church was monotheistic, not polytheistic such as Mormonism. The earliest reference we have to the use of the word “Trinity” is by Theophilus of Antioch in the 2nd century 180 A.D, 80 years after John the Apostle died. He was also writing around the time Irenaeus was and Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John. The word ‘Trinity’ may have been used at an earlier date than Theophilus, but if it was the references are lost. Though, it is very possible it was.

The Trinity was fully developed in the early Church, but over time new vocabulary was introduced to better explain the Trinity, some from Greek Philosophy and even the Gospel of John does this.

And the fact that you mentioned the Filioque shows how ignorant you really are. The Filioque is not a doctrine, it was asserted into the western Creed in the 6th century to help further combat Arian heresy. However, due to semantics, the east thought the west was teaching that the Holy Spirit finds it source in the Father and Son. But this is not what the west taught nor has it ever taught this. We, just like the east, believe the Holy Spirit ultimate source is of the Father and he goes through the Son. Some in the east still like to accuse the west of heresy today in regards to the Filioque, but the truth is we believe in the same things as the east. It’s all a problem of semantics. Indeed, Byzantine Christians who recognized this came back into full communion with the Catholic Church, they’re the Byzantine Catholics and they do not use the Filioque.

The Trinity was so well established in the Church, that is why there was so much controversy with Arianism. This was one of the first sudden and larger break from traditional apostolic doctrine. The Nicene Creed itself shows that Christians believed in the Trinity in its full form. Yes, terminology waas developed over time, but this was mainly to fight heresy introducing other doctrines about the Trinity and the Church had to clarify things. There was no development, but rather clarification against heretics.