Mormon Matters » Trinity

Filtered Visions by guest Reuben Collins

James — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 19:00:20 +0000

I’ve been thinking about Levi Peterson’s The Backslider lately (SPOILERS AHEAD).

The 1986 novel tells the story of Frank Windham, a Mormon cowboy from southern Utah. Frank struggles with his faith and finding his place in Mormon culture. Topics including sexual sin, backsliding, self-mutilation, and guilt have made this novel pretty controversial in many Mormon settings. Despite being beautifully written, I’ve always thought that the true genious of the novel is the way Frank envisions God & Jesus.

Something happens during the transmission of Heavenly knowlege from God into the human mind. We are terribly incapable of understanding or comprehending God. And this means that our visions and revelations, as sacred as they may be, aren’t actually visions of God. They’re human interpretations of glory beyond our understanding. We have visions of God – glorious visions – real visions – but they’re filtered through an earthly lens colored by our personal circumstances. We understand God based on who we need Him to be. This isn’t to denigrate the authenticity of visions, but we should be careful when trying to make categorical statements about God based on an earthly vision.

At one point in the novel, Frank is feeling guilty because of his backsliding and he imagines God pointing a gun at him, calling him to repentance. For some this is absurd, but for Frank, it was as real as any other heavenly vision. His understanding of God is shaped by his experiences. Whereas God communicated his wrath to Adam through banishment, to Noah through flooding, to Moses through serpents and plagues, He communicated his wrath to Frank through a rifle.

By the end of the novel, Frank imagines Jesus as a Cowboy, riding a horse with cigarette in hand. It’s an account that is sure to rub many Mormons the wrong way, but it’s who Frank needed Jesus to be in order to have faith in Him. A merciful God wouldn’t send Frank anything less than Cowboy Jesus.

So we can talk about who God is, what He looks like, or where He came from, but it doesn’t matter. What matters is that He is.

I don’t know much about God, but i’m pretty sure Jesus rides a bicycle.

“Happiness is a full bike rack!” –Yehuda Moon

So attentive MM readers, won’t you tell me a little about YOUR version of God?

What is the Holy Ghost?

Arthur — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 07:00:51 +0000

One of my favorite parts about BYU-Idaho, or rather, one thing I actually liked about BYU-Idaho, was the religion classes. Systematic, academic study of the Standard Works was something I’d never experienced before and I loved it.

One thing that hit me like a ton of bricks in the middle of a religion class at BYU was this: I don’t know who the Holy Ghost is. Even my religion instructor admitted ignorance on the subject, though speculation abounded.

The identity of our Heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, is a big deal to us, so much so that it is one of the defining characteristics of our faith. The first Article of Faith asserts the separate identities of the members of the Godhead, turning 1700 or so years of theological history on its head. From the Bible Dictionary, under the entry for God:

We learn from the revelations that have been given that there are three separate persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. From latter-day revelation we learn that the Father and the Son have tangible bodies of flesh and bone, and that the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit without flesh and bone (D&C 130: 22-23).

Fair enough. So in the scriptures we learn about Heavenly Father:

He is our Father in a very literal sense.
He has a physical body (hands, arms, legs, eyes, etc.).
We worship Him.
We pray to Him.
He is a God.

Similarly, Jesus Christ is very similar to His Father.

He is our spiritual brother.
He obtained a physical body during His time in mortality on Earth.
We worship Him.
We pray in His name.
We do ordinances in His name.
He is a God.

The Holy Ghost is a “personage of spirit.” We can conclude from this and a couple other passages in the scriptures that a personage of spirit looks like a man, but has no physical body.

To illustrate our ignorance, and the relative scarcity of information on the subject, I took the liberty of interviewing myself about the Holy Ghost:

1. Is the Holy Ghost our spirit brother? A: Umm. I would guess so? I think?

2. Is the Holy Ghost a “God”? A: He’s in the Godhead, right? So I would have to go with Yes. I think.

3. Do we worship the Holy Ghost? A: Not really. It’s not the Church of the Holy Ghost. We don’t pray in the name of the Holy Ghost. We definitely use the Holy Ghost. He’s our constant companion. But we don’t worship Him. If I prayed to the Holy Ghost, I would definitely feel like I’m doing it wrong. So the answer is no, probably.

4. Will the Holy Ghost obtain a body? A: That would only be fair, right? I have no idea. Maybe?

5. So that means the Holy Ghost is inferior to God or Jesus? A: That doesn’t sound right. Maybe? It would seem so.

6. Is there only one Holy Ghost? A: Probably?

7. Why don’t we know anything about the Holy Ghost? A: Good question.

See what I’m getting at here?

Now, before this turns into another “Unbridled Speculation” thread, let me say that I’m not necessarily looking for the answers to these questions, per se. What I’m really wondering is, why do we know so little about the Holy Ghost, his identity, his relationship to the other members of the Godhead, etc. compared to Christ and His Father? Or if the information’s out there, why don’t I know it, even in light of me being a 25-year-old member who has served a full-time mission and has studied the scriptures pretty darn well for my whole life? Is his/her/its identity so irrelevant that we simply don’t need to know? So the Holy Ghost’s identity is just majorly de-emphasized in our curriculum? And yet the Holy Ghost’s function is fundamental to our theology, our search for truth, people joining the Church, finding out its truthfulness, etc. Take the following things into account:

1. The Holy Ghost is our constant companion. We don’t know the identity of this being that is supposedly with us always? Not only that, but the Holy Ghost “dwells within us!” How comfortable are you with the idea of a being you don’t know living inside you? Is this figurative or literal?

2. The Holy Ghost is essential for salvation, in a roundabout way. We must have a testimony of Jesus Christ in order to be saved, and the only way to truly have a testimony of Christ is through the Spirit. Yet we don’t know what the Holy Ghost actually is?

So why the mystery?

Creeds of the Creedless

Hawkgrrrl — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:17:10 +0000

The restoration was essentially based on a rejection of the creeds of Christendom which were declared “an abomination” and “those professors were all corrupt; that: ‘they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” So, are all creeds bad or just those specific creeds? Are there creeds in Mormonism or is it a creedless religion?

Over Christmas, I was fortunate enough to be able to attend an Evensong service at Westminster Abbey. It was very cool to be in a worship service surrounded by 3000 of England’s most famous dead people. The choir was far superior to anything I’ve heard in any of the wards I’ve been in, although the songs had that quality of being made up as they went along (but in Latin). Part of the service was the recitation of the Anglican Creed. I could have in honesty recited 80% of it without batting an eye, but there were some statements in it that I could not in good conscience recite (but then I’m not an Anglican, am I?).

First of all, what is objectionable about creeds? Here are some thoughts:

Content. These specific creeds are usually rejected by Mormonism because they conflict with our view of God as being an exalted man with a body. But these are just current drafts of millenia old discussions, the efforts of people to describe the holy. Whenever people are doing that, their efforts will be tainted by:
- Consensus. Too many cooks spoil the broth, as they say. Groups of people haggling over the nature of God is likely to lead to debates full of compromises and competition, not actually nailing down the nature of God.
- Limits of Language. Regardless of how precisely we try to communicate, words have mutliple meanings and are subject to individual interpretation.
- Context of Culture & Time. Over time and in different cultural contexts, the meaning of words changes.
Lack of Authority. They are deemed to have been created by well-intentioned men but without authority and therefore, they allowed error to be included. This seems to be a problem frequently discussed in the b’nacle within Mormonism:
- Conflicting Opinions. Q: When two authorities disagree, which is right? A: The one who agrees with you.
- Prophetic Fallibility. Q: When is a prophet not speaking for God? A: When he’s proven wrong over time (or see the first answer).
In Writing. One could say that creeds are bad in that they are written down at a point in time based on one’s understanding, but they could be incorrect or need revision at a later date. Being written down causes people to stop seeking revelation and to continue to reinterpret the same dead words on a page. Creeds in general are rejected because they hem the church in rather than allowing it the freedom to reinterpret itself through greater light and knowledge.

I suggest that there are two main creeds that have crept into Mormonism: the Articles of Faith and the Proclamation on the Family. I considered and reject that the Official Declarations are creeds (they are more like one-time memos). I also reject the scripts in the temple as “creeds” of a sort because they change considerably and frequently.

The Articles of Faith were written by JS in 1841 (in a letter written to John Wentworth published in 1842 in Times & Seasons) to explain what Mormons believe. The Proclamation on the Family was published (to the world at large) to explain what Mormons believe about families and responsibilities. Are they creeds? And if they are creeds, do they have any of the 3 problems listed above? So, if we dismiss the idea that authority is a problem (for those who are Mormons at least), is there a problem with either content or with the fact that they are in writing?

First of all, let’s consider the ubiquitous Articles of Faith. What Primary child hasn’t memorized these basic, irrefutable tenets of Mormonism? Surely, their content must be above reproach. Or is it? Here’s a counter-point on the Articles of Faith, excerpted from here.

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie boasted as follows concerning the Articles of Faith:

“For brevity, clearness, and forthrightness of doctrinal presentation, they are unexcelled. When compared with the muddled creeds formulated by the supposedly greatest religious thinkers of Christendom—creeds born amid the strife, bitterness, and debates of councils that struggled at length over every word and comma—the Articles of Faith, coming forth as the spontaneous and inspired writing of one man, are a marked evidence of the spirit of revelation that rested upon the Prophet.” (Mormon Doctrine, page 53)

Actually, the truth of the matter is that the Articles of Faith are remarkable for what they fail to say concerning the teachings of the Mormon Church. Although Joseph Smith was practicing polygamy at the time he authored them, he made no reference to the doctrine of plural marriage. He made no mention of his teaching that there are many Gods, that God was once a man or that men can become Gods. The Articles of Faith are completely silent concerning the Doctrine and Covenants which contains many of Smith’s revelations and distinctive doctrines. Even Apostle McConkie had to admit that these “articles, of course, do not attempt to summarize all of the basic doctrines of the gospel…. the Articles of Faith are silent on such things as celestial marriage, salvation for the dead, temple work in all its phases, the resurrection, and degrees of glory in the eternal worlds.” (Ibid.) The Articles of Faith seem to be an attempt to hide almost all of the LDS teachings which separate the Mormon Church from historic Christianity.

So, it would seem that the Articles of Faith might be said to suffer the same basic problems of all creeds: content, authority, and being written at a fixed point in time. Perhaps these are issues that all scripture face as well. But are they an abomination? More or less of an abomination than the Creeds of Chrstendom?

Do you agree that these are creeds of Mormonism? Do they lead to the same sorts of problems that other creeds do or are our creeds OK, but others’ are not? Discuss.

Trying to Understand Creedal Trinitarianism – An Analogy

Bruce Nielson — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 07:00:16 +0000

In my last post I, in great detail, demonstrated why I believe the Trinity doctrine itself is not a contradiction but that creedal Christians have been trained to use it in a contradictory way.

I did it using predict logic, tons of examples, and examples from real life conversations with creedal Christians. So that means no one will read it.

It would seem that being precise with your language makes it difficult to read and comprehend. (A fact all programmers know.) Sometimes it’s easier to just use an example, which is less precise but more understandable. So here is an example that covers everything I said in my last post via an analogy.

God is Red, God is Blue

Pretend, for a moment, that the Bible teaches two things. One is that God is red and the other is that God is blue. It’s not hard to see the analogy here to the Trinity doctrine, but I’ll let you come up with it yourself.

Is this a contradiction? Not in and off itself. Paradoxical? Certainly. But there are multiple ways to resolve this seeming contradiction. God can be both red and blue.

But when I try to sincerely have dialog with creedal Trinitarians I get the feeling that they just have a collection of words, called a creed, that they “believe” but have no underlying meaning to those words, with one notable exception: when I try to apply my own meaning to those words. Then, and only then, do the words in the creed take on sudden meaning, just long enough to deny me. Then they go back to having no meaning again. It’s very fluid and frustrating when you are trying to discuss beliefs.

A Typical Conversation with a Creedal Trinitarian

So a typical conversation with a Creedal Trinitarian seems to go like this to me:

Creedal Trinitarian: God is red. God is blue. That’s what the Bible says.

Me: I agree. That is what the Bible says. And I believe that God is red and God is blue.

Creedal Trinitarian: No, you don’t believe that. You don’t even believe the Bible. You believe Joseph Smith. We have different sources of truth, so we aren’t the same and we have no common ground — mutually accepted sources of truth — that we can use as a basis for dialog. I believe the Bible, you believe Joseph.

Me: Yes, I do accept the revelations of Joseph Smith as true, just like I accept the Bible, in fact.

Creedal Trinitarian: But the revelations of Joseph Smith contradict the Bible.

Me: Not to me they don’t. What I mean is, I interpret the Bible AND the teachings of Joseph Smith in ways you aren’t familiar with. I will grant that how you choose to interpret Joseph Smith’s revelations contradict how you choose to interpret the Bible. But the way I interpret Joseph Smith’s revelations and the Bible they do not contradict. Besides, isn’t believing God is red and God is blue “contradictory” in the way you believe it?

Creedal Trinitarian: That’s what the Bible teaches. So I know it’s true.

Me: I know, I already said that. I have said I believe it myself. But what does “God is red” and “God is blue” mean to you. For example, couldn’t it mean that God is half red and half blue. Like he has different parts or aspects of different color?

Creedal Trinitarian: No! The Bible doesn’t say God is half red, it says God is red. It doesn’t say God is half blue, it says God is blue.

Me: Do you understanding it figuratively? I mean do you believe God is red and God is blue means he’s courageous and true, maybe?

Creedal Trinitarian: It doesn’t say God is courageous and true, though He is that too. But it says God is red and God is blue. And that is what it means.

Me: Okay, so you believe all aspects of “God” are red and all are blue and it’s not figurative to you in any way? In what sense do you undertstand those concepts then?

Creedal Trinitarian: I mean I believe the Bible: God is red, God is blue.

Me: Do you mean that God is purple? Purple is both fully red and fully blue. That would be logical.

Creedal Trinitarian: No! The Bible does not say God is purple! The Bible says God is red and God is blue. Red is not purple. Blue is not purple.

Me: Yes, but Purple is both fully red and fully blue.

Creedal Trinitarians: I already said the Bible doesn’t say that. So that is not what I believe.

Me: Okay, maybe God is red all over and blue all over, like dithering. So it appears purple at a distance, but if you look closely he really is, all over red and blue, just not at the same location at the same time.

Creedal Trinitarisn: No! The Bible does not say God is dithered blue and red. That would mean God isn’t fully red and isn’t fully blue.

Me: Do you believe God is like two shades of clear glass layered on each other? One red and one blue? That would make him both red and blue in a sense, right?

Creedal Trinitarian: The Bible does not say God is layered blue on top of red, or vice versa. That would make him black to the eye, and God is certainly not black. That would be blaspheme. The Bible says that God is red and God is blue so that is incorrect doctrine.

Me: But couldn’t those words in the Bible have meant that…

Creedal Trinitarian: No! They mean what they say and they say what they mean. You are so desperately seeking a simple answer that you are falling into heresy. By the way, speaking of contradictions, Joseph Smith taught that God was green! See, right there, Joseph Smith and the Bible contradict each other! You have to admit you accept Joseph while I accept Jesus.

Me: But to me that means God is white.

Creedal Trinitarians: What?!

Me: Yes, under light color theory, red, blue, and green make white light. If you crank up the red fully, the blue fully, and the green fully, you get white. God is white because God is fully red, fully blue, and fully green. Or in other words, God is all colors. See, Joseph Smith didn’t contradict the Bible. And by the way, there was nothing “simple” about that answer. In fact, it’s more complex then what you’ve been advocating. I’ve never claimed God was simple to comprehend, only that He isn’t contradictory.

Creedal Trinitarian: No! God is not green nor white, the Bible denies that possibility.

Me: But the Bible doesn’t say he isn’t green, so it doesn’t deny the possibility. I’m affirming God is red and God is blue, just like the Bible says. I’m simply adding that He is also green and thus He is white.

Creedal Trinitarian: Yes the Bible does deny that God is green. It says God is red and God is blue. Clearly red is not green and blue is not green. Red and blue aren’t white either. We’re talking school child logic here.

Me: But the way you are using those words, red isn’t blue and blue isn’t red either! So it’s a contradiction, not school child logic.

Creedal Trinitarian: I realize it seems contradictory to an unbeliever like yourself, but to me it’s a paradox.

Me: In what sense is it a paradox to you? Normally we call something a paradox when we apply meaning to it that makes it non-contradictory, even though at first it seemed contradictory. “The first shall be last and the last shall be first” is a paradox because we are equivocating the meaning of the words mid sentence for effect.

Creedal Trinitarian: So we are agreed, it’s a paradox.

Me: Yes, I believe it’s a paradox – to me! But the way you are using it, it’s a contradiction.

Creedal Trinitarian: No, it’s not. It’s a paradox. Besides, God can make a contradiction true anyhow. God can do anything.

Me: But if God can make a contradiction true, then why do you see Joseph Smith’s new revelation that God is green as problematic? God can be green in the same sense that you accept God as red and as blue. Thus logically you can’t deny the possibly that God is green (or white) just because the Bible says He is red and blue.

Creedal Trinitarian: No, God is not green. The Bible is very clear on this point. It says God is red and God is blue. Red is not green and neither is blue. White is not green and white is not blue.

Me: I feel like we’re getting no where fast.

Creedal Trinitarian: You are an unbeliever. If you believed in the Bible and accepted it as true over Joseph Smith or your own need to make up simple answers then you’d understand.

Me: I think you have no meaning in your head as to what it means when you say God is red or God is blue except when you need it to deny me. Then it takes on meaning just long enough to exclude me.

Creedal Trinitarian: I just believe what the Bible says.

Me: I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on that. I don’t believe you believe what the Bible says. I think you believe the creedal interpretation of what the Bible is saying.

Creedal Trinitarian: They are the same. One just summarizes the other.

Me: How can you say that? How can you sincerely look at me after this conversation, where I just gave multiple other ways to interpret the Bible’s sayings validly and then, with a straight face, tell me that creeds just summarizes and don’t interpret the Bible?

Creedal Trinitarian: It’s that you believe Joseph Smith. That is why you can’t understand. Satan has blinded you to the truth.

Me: This conversation isn’t really progressing is it?

Creedal Trinitarian: No, it’s not. I think we should agree to disagree.

Me: Okay. *Sigh* Yet another failed attempt to get anywhere with understanding this creedal doctrine.

Creedal Trinitarian: It’s scriptural, not “creedal”. Just read and accept the Bible and you’ll understand.

Conclusion

I want to make it very clear that I am not trying to be disrespectful of creedal Trinitarian beliefs. I think they are quite sincere in their desire to believe the Bible. But the above conversation is a true and realistic example of all my conversations with creedal Trinitarians, at least as far as I’m currently able to process what they are saying.

While I can’t rule out the possibility that I have missed some point that is required for my comprehension, or possibly I am blinded to it by my personal biases, after years of such conversations I am no longer convinced such a point exists. So likewise I must not rule out the possibility that I am correct: that the creedal Trinity doctrine has no meaning even to creedal Trinitarians except when used to judge other people’s beliefs as being “non-Christian.” The end result of this, if I am correct, is that they use the creeds in contradictory ways just like the sample conversation above.

Is the Trinity Doctrine a Contradiction?

Bruce Nielson — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 07:00:28 +0000

Several times in discussions on Mormon Matters I’ve made the comment that the Trinity doctrine is a contraction. Actually, technically I was not correct when I said that. I wish to explain my self further, partially backtracking on, or at least nuancing, those comments.

The Trinity doctrine itself doesn’t have to be a contradiction – indeed, I grow more convinced all the time that the Trinity doctrine, at it’s root, is what I believe. What I should have said is that creedal Christians honestly seem to me to be making a choice to interpret or use the Trinity doctrine in a contradictory way.

This, in and of itself, wouldn’t be much of a problem if it weren’t for the fact that creedal Christians have also decided to use that contradiction as a basis for judging others salvation, and have done so for millenia.

I am now going to explain in detail what I mean. This is going to be boring, so I highly recommend that you don’t read this post and skip it altogether unless you like logic or have a strong desire to understand the Trinity doctrines problematic intricacies. Still, I write this an issue it as a challenge to creedal Christians to evaluate what I am saying and either help me understand their beliefs better or consider the possiblity that they believe some contradictions.

The Trinity Doctrine Defined

For the sake of argument, we’re going to take the Athanasius Creed as our “definition” of “The Trinity Doctrine.” This is a postulate for the sake of argument. Yes, you could argue that the Trinity doctrine is true but the Athanasius creed is false. (An argument I often make myself.) But for this argument, we’re assuming they are one and the same for our purposes.

You can find the text of the Athanasius creed here.

The key to understanding the contradiction in how creedal Christians interpret the Athanasius creed is in “verse” 4: “Neither confounding the Persons: nor dividing the Substance [Essence].”

A common way creedal Christians explain this passage is to say that God is three “persons” but one “being.” [1]

Now it’s important to understand that the word “person” here does not mean “person” in any dictionary definition sense of that word. So what does it mean? After attempting to study this out, so far, I have never found an answer to that question. All I have found, so far, are explanations that the word “person” doesn’t mean “person” in any “modern philosophical usage.” [2]

However, creedal Christiand believe that because the members of the Trinity/Godhead are different “person” they are distinctly different from each other. Mormon and non-Mormon Christians seem to be in agreement on this point.

However, this doesn’t mean that they are three Gods; for that would be, to a creedal Christian, polytheism. [3] Thus we are told in verse 15 and 16:

So the Father is God: the Son is God: and the Holy Ghost is God.

And yet they are not three Gods: but one God.

Now this statement is not problematic by itself. In fact, it’s doctrine Mormon’s share with their creedal Christian neighbors. We believe the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. But we also believe in one God and often speak in such terms. Contradiction? Not yet. For we aren’t sure yet what the words actually mean.

If, for example, we think of “God” as meaning “divinity” then this simply means “So the Father is Divine: the Son is Divine: and the Holy Ghost is Divine. And yet there are not three separate and distinct divinities with separate wills, but only one.”

Even the most Tritheistic of Mormons will agree with how I just reworded verse 15 and 16. Yet it’s completely consistent with verse 15 and 16. So we do not “disagree” with that part of the Athanasius Creed, per se.

Now let’s look at verses 5 and 24:

For there is one Person of the Father: another of the Son: and another of the Holy Ghost.

So there is one Father, not three Fathers: one Son, not three Sons: one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.

Is this problematic or contradictory? No, it’s not. This also is something Mormons can agree with, even in our most Tritheistic forms.

What Do We Disagree with in the Athanasius Creed?

Now this is where things get tricky. Is there anything in the Athanasius creed Mormons “disagree” with? No cheating by using how Creedal Christians “interpret” this creed. You are only allowed to look at the words themselves for this exercise. There are only two thing I can find that we directly disagree with in the Athanasius creed. The first is the pronouncement of damnation for not accepting it. (See verse 1, 28, and 44.)

The second is the ban on referring to more than one God in a numerical sense in verse 20:

So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion: to say, There be [are] three Gods, or three Lords.

Granted, Mormons would probably not choose to word many things the way the creeds do, but there is nothing else there, at least in the words themselves, that can’t be adequately reconciled to our beliefs. [4] Does that mean Mormons and Creedal Christians believe the same things? Not on your life!

How Do We Differ?

At issue here is the fact that you can’t, or shouldn’t, just take a bunch of words and logically say “I believe that” but have no interpretation for those words. This is something I often perceive creedal Christians as doing. They are quick to explain how the words of the Athanasius creed don’t mean what Mormons believe, but not at all anxious to explain what the words do mean, even just for themselves. [5]

One common way to interpret verse 5 and 24 (as quoted above) is to say that the Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Ghost, etc. Okay, sounds good to me.

Another common way to look at the Athanasius creedal view of the Trinity is to say that the Son is 100% God, the Father is 100% God, the Holy Ghost is 100% God. If I understand “God” a meaning “divine nature” then I’m fine with that too. But at this point, things break down. Because, I’m always told by creedal Trinitarians, that by “God” they do not mean “Divinity.” “God” is not a characteristic that you can have, it’s something you are. It’s a form of identity.

But what do they mean? Do they, for example, mean that “God” is a statement of identity in the same way that I might say “Batman and Bruce Wayne are the same being?”

If this is what they mean, then let’s work out the logic for it. We are asserting:

The Father (identity) is God (identity)
The Son (identity) is God (identity)
The Father (identity) is not the Son (identity)
The Son (identity) is not the Father (identity)

Assuming all those statements are about identity, do we have a logical contradiction? Absolutely. I have included the proof – and this is an actual logical proof – in the footnotes. [6] Put simply, the idea that the Athanasius doctrine of Trinity is talking about “God” as an identity is a logical contradiction. Period.

No Answer is Good Enough

I do not believe there is an inherent contradiction in the Trinity doctrine. As far as I can tell, I completely agree with the Trinity doctrine as described in the Athanasius creed minus the two points I mentioned.

But merely agreeing with the words seems to not be enough. Apparently the words in the creed do take on meaning in one case: when needed to deny someone else’s sincere attempt to make sense of the Trinity doctrine.

What I’d really like to see is for creedal Christians to take their explanations of their denials of my beliefs and hold themselves to it logically. Let’s consider some examples of what I am saying.

Example 1: Splitting the Substance

Of course it’s easy enough to say: “We aren’t talking about identity. We’re saying that there are two aspects, person and being. There are three persons that are God, but only one being. My proof above is then problematic because it assumes that given a “being” is God that being is the Father and also the Son. But in fact it’s only one person in that “being” that is the Father.

Okay, fair enough. That is a logical argument and it forces me to redo my proof now that I have that further explanation. But here is the problem, this is really the same saying “God” does not identify the person, but only the group. Mormons would have no issue with this formula because we often think of God as being the whole Godhead (a group identity). But creedal Christians find this idea repugnant because it means that the persons are only 1/3 of “God.” So this formula is supposedly rejected by the Athanasius creed because it says the Father is God and the Son is God, not that they are 1/3 of God.

In other words, they specifically treat “God” as a unique identity when denying the Mormon concept of Godhead, but then later treat it like it isn’t a unique identity when denying their Trinity doctrine is a contradiction.

Example 2: Tritheism

Another way I’ve seen the potential contradiction in the Athanasius creed resolved is to admit that there are in fact three persons that are all fully God and that numerically you could understand that as meaning there are three Gods, but that we shouldn’t talk of it that way because people will confuse the concept with Tritheism. Or, in other words, they are admitting that there is both one God in one sense of the word “God” but three “Gods” in another sense. Richard Swinburne seems to have suggested something similar to this approach,though it’s generally considered unacceptable by Trinitiarians.

I have been told, many times, by creedal Trinitarians that this is impossible because it’s the same as saying there is three Gods and thus it’s polytheism. In other words, when denying this approach, the creedal belief in one God becomes a unique identity and we aren’t allowed to consider the possiblity of “God” having multiple meanings. So the creedal statement that there is only one God takes on meaning here long enough to deny this possiblity.

Example 3: Modalism

Another way I’ve seen this addressed is by admitting that the Father is in fact the Son, at least in some sense. But of course this is now the same as the heresy of modalism because the Father is the Son and vice versa. They are the same “person” if you will. Again, the creedal statement that the Father and the Son aren’t the same person suddenly takes on meaning long enough to deny this possiblity.

Incomprehensibility vs. Contradiction

Another common approach to this problem I’ve seen with Creedal Christians is to say “well, I’m not saying it’s comprehensible.” I often get examples of other incomprehensibles, for example, light being both a wave and a particle. “The universe is not comprehensible, so why would God be?” I am told.

But what does the word “comprehensible” mean in this context? If I say that light is both a wave and a particle, I would agree that I can’t really “comprehend” that in the sense that I can’t, in my mind, picture what as “wavicle” looks like. But I can easily “comprehend” that a “wavicle” is something that sometimes has properties of a wave and sometimes a particle. I can easily state the mathematics behind it. I can use the math to make predictions.

This objection is a dodge. It equates “contradiction” to “incomprehensible” inappropriately. I am not asking creedal Christians to give me a set of statements that I can picture in my head (I.e. “comprehend”) I’m asking them to give me a set of statements that they themselves are willing to accept the logical conclusions of.

Will God Make a Contradiction True?

Another common thing I hear from Creedal Christians is God can make a contradiction true.

Now I have no way of knowing if God can or can’t make a contradiction true. But I do know that God says he wouldn’t because making a contraction true is the same as lying. For example, God could declare that you are saved if you believe in Jesus Christ and then send you to hell for it because you are both saved and not saved.

Accepting that God would make a contradiction, for all intents and purposes, scrubs God off the slate (to paraphrase Lewis) for the sake of having any discussion about Him at all.

Oh, and if you are going to accept that contradiction, why not accept an equivalent one: that God is both one God and three Gods. If you can accept that, you now need to accept that Mormons are fully Trinitarians. In fact, you’ll have to accept that Jehovah’s Witnesses are too because Jesus is both fully God and not fully God. There is no longer a basis for rejecting anyone as having truth or not having truth because the very concept of “truth” starts with the assumption that we are not allowing contradictions.

Use of Jargon

I have seen some creedal Christians try to get around their contradictory use of the Trinity doctrine through use of Jargon. By multiplying words, we might be able to eventually hide the fact that we’re avoiding answering the question of what the Trinity doctrine really means. Take a close look at the quote in footnote 1. I believe this is such a case.

Conclusions

I hope I’ve clarified the problem as I see it, as well as my real frustrations with trying to make sense of creedal Christian’s beliefs. There are many ways to take the Trinity doctrine and make sense of it, yet all of those ways are considered unacceptable to creedal Christians. Thus the net result is that they seem to believe a group of words that have no meaning even to them.

Notes:
[1] As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, this is just a word game in many ways. To anyone not already accepting the creeds as the authoritative revealed word of God, the words “person” and “being” would mean the same thing. And, of course, the Bible doesn’t use those words. “Person” and “Being” are non-scriptural and purely creedal. See also footnote 3 for further explanation of how “person” and “being” are not used in any common sense of those words.

[2] Consider this “explanation” of the word “person” given on the same web page as the Athanasius creed:

In modern philosophical usage the term person means a separate and distinct rational individual. But the tri-personality of God is not a numerical or essential trinity of three beings (like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), for this would be tritheism; nor is it, on the other hand, merely a threefold aspect and mode of manifestation, in the Sabellian or Swedenborgian sense; but it is a real, objective, and eternal, though ineffable, distinction in the one Divine being, with a corresponding threefold revelation of this being in the works of creation, redemption, and sanctification. Hence the distinction between the immanent, intrinsic (or ontological) trinity and the extrinsic or economical) trinity; in other words, between the trinity of essence and the trinity of manifestation.

Can someone tell me what any of this actually means? It really comes across to me like a very wordy denial that the word “person” as used in the creeds actually mean “person” at all. It tells us what it doesn’t mean, not what it does mean.

It is sayings like this that make me wish I had a trusted but very educated creedal Christian to ask questions of but could trust he/she wouldn’t get mad if I keep asking penetrating questions and not accept unexplained creedal statements as answers.

[3] Again, this seems to me to be a word game. To a full monotheist, like a Jew or Muslim, three persons that are all fully God is three Gods and thus polytheism.

Let’s put this another way: if it’s okay to redefine monotheism from “one God” to “one God that is found 100% in three distinctly different persons” (Trinity formula) then why isn’t it okay to redefine monotheism to “one God that is a Godhead made up of three persons that are all also fully God.” (LDS formula) Again, this seems like a word game to me.

[4] I know I’ll get push back on this. Mormons are so strongly trained to reject creeds, that the idea that it’s possible to interpret them as Mormon doctrine is more or less anathema for us. Furthermore, there are a lot of questionable things stated in the Athanasius creed that many Mormons (often even myself) would prefer to not interpret as pro-Mormon. For example:

“So that in all things, as aforesaid: the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshiped.”

But McConkie said we worship only the Father, right? No, actually, McConkie allowed for worshiping them as a single unit. See the details here. So this statement, while abnormal for Mormons is not inconsistent with even McConkie’s own highly tri-theistic teachings. For this statement to have been at odds with our teachings it would have had to have said “we worship the Son by addressing prayers in His name.”

A few others. Verse 9:
“The Father incomprehensible [unlimited]: the Son incomprehensible [unlimited]: and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible [unlimited, or infinite].”

Mormons don’t like to think of God as “incomprehensible” and we often used this as a dividing point between ourselves and creedal Christians. However, even the most die hard Mormons in this regard will ultimately relent and admit that there are, at least currently to us mortals, things that are incomprehensible about God. I think our general concern with this verse is that it seems to be referring to the Trinity doctrine itself as incomprehensible. And since we don’t agree with the traditional interpretation of Trinity, this is a self reference that we do reject. But the words themselves, we don’t reject.

Verse 8:
“The Father uncreate [uncreated]: the Son uncreate [uncreated]: and the Holy Ghost uncreate [uncreated].”

Do we think of the Son as uncreated? Isn’t he “begotten” and thus created? Or do we think of all intelligence as uncreated and thus the Son is uncreated? It entirely depends on how you choose to interpret this verse. But clearly Mormons could choose to legitimately agree with the words.

Verse 33:
“[the Son] Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead: and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood.”

Do Mormons agree with this? Well, we do in fact see Jesus as equal to the father in terms of this “divinity” (I.e. “Godhood”) but inferior in terms of His “Glory.” Close fit to be sure. If I assume “manhood” is a reference to his “Sonship” then I have no problems with how this verse is worded. Of course, traditionally Christians interpret this verse to mean that Jesus is in every way equal to the Father accept when He was a man. And clearly Mormons would disagree with this.

But let’s not get too worried about whether or not Mormons agree with the Athanasius creed or not. That isn’t my point. My point is that the words in the Athanasius creed can’t be separated from their traditional interpretation. This is key to understanding why the doctrine of Trinity is a contradiction in how creedal Christians use it.

[5] See footnote 1 for further explanation about this.

[6] Here is the proof in predicate logic. This will avoid misunderstandings of what I am saying. Please note, I know very little about predicate logic out side of one class ages ago, so feel free to check me and critique. That’s sort of the point of going through this much trouble — to be sure I’m being precise in what I am saying so that I can be understood.

F = Father, G = God, S = Son
To display “identity” I’m going to use “if and only if” as my logical statement.

Assumptions:
F ↔ G (I.e. If and only if the Father, then God. Or in other words, the Father is uniquely identified as God)
S ↔ G (I.e. If and only if the Son, then God. Or in other words, the Son is uniquely identified as God)
¬ (F ↔ S) (I.e. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father)

Derivations:
¬ [(F → S) ∧ (S → F)]
¬ [(F → S) ∧ (S → F)] ⊢ (¬(F → S) ∨ ¬(S → F))
¬(F → S) ∨ ¬(S → F)
[(F → G) ∧ (G → F)]
[(F ∧ G) ∨ (¬G ∧ ¬F)]
[(S → G) ∧ (G → S)]
[(S ∧ G) ∨ (¬G ∧ ¬S)]
S → G
G → F
[(S → G) ∧ (G → F)] ⊢ (S → F)
[(F → G) ∧ (G → S)] ⊢ (F → S)
¬(F → S) ∨ ¬(S → F)
(S → F)
(F → S)
(F ↔ S)

In plain English, we just concluded that the Father is the Son, which is a contradiction to one of our assumptions.

Of course you don’t need all this. It should be intuitively obvious that, as wikipedia puts it: “[The Trinity Doctrine] appears to imply that identity is not transitive—’for the Father is identical with God, the Son is identical with God, and the Father is not identical with the Son.’”

The Mormon Trinity

KC Kern — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 07:00:25 +0000

A few months ago, Bruce hosted a discussion about the word and concept of the Trinity. It seems that most Mormons associate the idea of Trinity with false doctrine, and substitute any reference to it with the term “Godhead.” I have been in many Sunday school and quorum lessons in which the nature of God is discussed, and usually the teacher says something along the lines of “In other churches, they believe that God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are all the same person.” Then, they turn to the scriptures of Jesus’ baptism, point out the distinctness of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and consider it case-closed. Or, they will turn to a scripture of Jesus praying, and, in a semi-mocking tone, say “So, is Jesus praying to himself here?” trying to show how ridiculous the idea is that they could all be the same.

I fear that this straw-man description of the trinity does it great injustice. The traditional concept of the Trinity, as understood by mainstream Christianity, can be expressed in this diagram:

On first sight, someone might scoff, noting both the “is” and “is not” jutting from and between each member of the Godhead, and see that as an irreconcilable contradiction. What I find interesting about this diagram, however, is the fact that essentially, a fourth unit is created: the central “God,” which represents all three.

We usually use the term “God” to refer to “God the Father”/Elohim, but do we as Mormons have any terms that irrespectively refer to all/any three? It turns out we do. Consider the four following statements that could plausibly be heard at the pulpit on any given Sunday:

“I prayed, and asked the Lord to help me.”
“I’m so grateful for the Lord’s sacrifice for all of us.”
“The Lord comforted me in my time of need.”
“I know that the Lord loves each and every one of us.”

Each of these fairly generic LDS-friendly sentences uses the term “Lord,” but in each instance refers to someone different: #1 refers to Heavenly Father, #2 refers to Jesus Christ, #3 refers to the Holy Ghost, and #4 refers to their collective whole.

Now let’s look back at our Trinity diagram. Replace the central “God,” with “the Lord,” and as far as I can tell, it is congruent with the LDS usage of the word, as I just demonstrated. So what does this mean?

First, I think it’s important to note the unique elements of LDS beliefs. The corporal and physically separate nature of the Father and Son, and the unembodied spiritual, yet also distinct nature of the Holy Ghost are fundamental tenants of LDS theology, and these beliefs are by-and-large not shared with our mainstream Christian neighbors.

But let’s not forget that even their Trinity diagram includes “is not”s separating each figure. As Mormons, this essentially fits within our doctrine that they are separate and distinct.

In considering the “is”s, we enter a realm where mainstream Christians feel as ease, and Mormons begin to feel squeamish. But should we? Besides the fact that, to us, they are all “the Lord,” do we have any other basis to embrace their oneness? The scriptures, yes, even the scriptures of the Restoration, would confirm this with a resounding “YES!”

When Jesus visited the Nephites, he told them:

“And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.” (3 Nephi 11: 27)

And to Joseph Smith, the Lord was even more emphatic:

“…the Holy Ghost, which beareth record of the Father and of the Son; Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen. (D&C 20:27-28)

The defensive LDS refrain regarding the Godhead being “one,” is that they are “one in purpose.” But what does that really mean anyways? Sometimes it seems like code for “oh, we don’t really believe they’re one, we just need to find a clever way to explain away these bothersome scriptures.”

I think a more accurate perspective of their oneness might be reached if we consider their omniscience. If we truly accept that God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are in fact all-knowing, that would mean that one could not think a thought without the others instantly knowing it. One could not acquire or process any piece of information without the others doing the same. So while we do have accepted procedural protocols on how to pray (to the Father in the name of Jesus Christ,) we need to be aware that we cannot address the Father without Jesus Christ being equally aware of our prayer, and the Holy Ghost cannot inspire us with anything that Heavenly Father and Jesus aren’t equally wishing for us to know.

Often times in our attempts to conceptualize God as a loving a personable father, we impose mortal human limitations on him that in fact do not exists, forgetting the divine attributes which we do not posses as mortals: omniscience and omnipotence for starters.

But even within the scope of our human limits, there are ways to wrap our brains around a similar kind of “oneness.” Any entrepreneur or business person should be familiar with concept of a business partnership, or corporation.

Suppose two people, Tim and Tom, engage in a business venture, and decide to create a corporation to do so. They call their corporation “T&T Widgets Inc.” The corporation becomes an independent legal entity. Tim was one entity, Tom was an another, and a third, virtual entity was created to represent them both: the corporation. When “T&T Widgets” sends a message to a customer, its a “letter.” When Tim sends a message to Tom, its a “memo.” The corporation has rights, has a name, can engage in business transactions, can participate in legal affairs, all as a single entity. In terms of practical reality, Tim, Tom, or both, are engaging in the actual check writing, paper signing, and legal testifying, but whether it is Tim or Tom, it makes no difference, so long as they are acting in the name of the corporation, not themselves.

So, the corporation is “real,” it exists, it interacts with the world, and it is not imaginary. But does it have a physical body? Does it have parts? Does it have passions? No. It is formless, has no location, no physical bounds. How about Tim and Tom? They, on the other hand, do have bodies, parts, and passions, have physical limits, locations, etc. I hope the analogy is clear.

It’s true that the scriptures and prophets don’t always use the clearest of language when describing one member of the Godhead as opposed to another. Abinadi told his listeners:

“Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father. Amen.”

“Eternal Father” is not usually the term we use to refer to Jesus Christ. But how off-base is that? Abinadi seemed comfortable enough using it.

Some powerful insight about this comes from the Gospel of John, chapter 14.

Jesus tells Philip that “no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. ” (v6-7)

Philip, anxious to finally come to know and see this “Father” of which Jesus spoke, said:

“Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.” (v8)

Jesus responds by poignantly describing his relationship and role as a revelator of the Father:

“Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me.” (v9-11)

In his own words, it is impossible to see Jesus, and not see the Father. I believe this is to be understood not in context of seeing their physical beings, but in knowing them. It is impossible to know, believe and love Jesus without knowing, believing, and loving God—because they are one. Jesus is the perfect representation of the Father, and exhibits his attributes in every imaginable way. Their oneness goes far beyond simply having the same mission statement.

Even in reference to the physical nature of their resurrected bodies, Joseph Smith said that he “saw two glorious personages, who exactly resembled each other in their features or likeness,” (1840 account, emphasis added.) While the physical distinctness of the two is a clear message from the first vision, even Joseph Smith felt it appropriate to, in a different account, report his vision of the two by simply saying: “I saw the Lord.” (1832 account)

I have found that the scriptures and words of the prophets, particularly those which have direct references to God, find increased beauty and simplicity when both the concepts of distinct beings as well as a unified single virtual entity are taken into account. Quandaries over “who’s speaking” in the scriptures are quickly resolved; there’s no need to loose sleep over why Jesus is sometimes called “God himself,” no need to provide apologetics for scriptures teaching that they are one, and we might grasp a more reasonable understanding of how God is understood (or maybe misunderstood) in other religious circles.

Most importantly, I think the greatest take-home lesson is that we can deepen our relationship with deity by realizing that any interaction with one member of the Godhead (praying, feeling the Spirit, reading the words of Christ) spans through the awareness and care of the other two as well.

Optional reading assignment: “The Grandeur of God,” by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland

The Book of Mormon’s Doctrine of Deity

Bruce Nielson — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 07:00:13 +0000

I am fascinated by the Book of Mormon’s teachings (i.e. doctrines) about deity. I am almost equally fascinated with the many scholarly attempts to force fit it into pre-existing categories to make it seem safe. [1]

There is a danger in trying to force fit the Book of Mormon into a pre-existing theological doctrine of deity. It is the same danger that exists in trying to force the Bible into a pre-existing theological doctrine of deity.

Scripture — whether the Book of Mormon or the Bible — supplies us points of data. They do not supply us a specific theology. Theology is how we interpret or put those points together into a coherent whole for ourselves.

But often our theologies are merely approximations of scriptural teachings. After all, profound truths must somehow be turned into concrete concepts or we can’t wrap our mind around them.

In this article, I’m going to attempt to actually list all the data points but not (at least not yet) attempt to “best fit” it to a theology.

Jesus is God

This is the most fundamental message of the Book of Mormon and the Title page states so:

…to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations…

2 Nephi 26:12:

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;

Jesus is specifically indicated as being fully God and fully Divine. There is no Book of Mormon concept of Jesus being a sub-god of some sort.

Jesus is specifically referred to, by those worshiping Him, as their Lord and God:

3 Nephi 3:18:

And behold, they began to pray; and they did pray unto Jesus, calling him their Lord and their God.

Jesus is the Son of God, the Only Begotten of His Father

2 Nephi 25:19

19 For according to the words of the prophets, the Messiah cometh in six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem; and according to the words of the prophets, and also the word of the angel of God, his name shall be Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Alma 9:26:

26 And not many days hence the Son of God shall come in his glory; and his glory shall be the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace, equity, and truth, full of patience, mercy, and long-suffering, quick to hear the cries of his people and to answer their prayers.

3 Nephi 20:31:

And they shall believe in me, that I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and shall pray unto the Father in my name.

See also Mosiah 4:2; Alma 5:50; Alma 6:8; Alma 7: 9-10, 13; Alma 13:16; Alma 16:19-20; Morm 9:22 and many many more. (See here)

Jesus is Worthy of Worship

In some sense of the word “worship” — we shall allow for more than one sense of that word – Jesus is to be worshiped, though the proper sense is specifically stated as worshiping the Father in His name.

2 Ne. 25: 16, 29

16 …until they shall be persuaded to believe in Christ, the Son of God, and the atonement, which is infinite for all mankind-and when that day shall come that they shall believe in Christ, and worship the Father in his name, with pure hearts and clean hands, and look not forward any more for another Messiah, then, at that time, the day will come that it must needs be expedient that they should believe these things.

29 And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out.

When Jesus is On Earth, He is Treated as a Separate Personality from His Father

3 Nephi 19, previously discussed, Jesus explains that the people prayed to Him only because He was present while the Father was not. He prays to the Father while they pray to Him and he explains that He wants them to be one in the same sense that He and the Father are one.

3 Nephi 19:21-23:

21 Father, I pray thee that thou wilt give the Holy Ghost unto all them that shall believe in their words.

22 Father, thou hast given them the Holy Ghost because they believe in me; and thou seest that they believe in me because thou hearest them, and they pray unto me; and they pray unto me because I am with them.

23 And now Father, I pray unto thee for them, and also for all those who shall believe on their words, that they may believe in me, that I may be in them as thou, Father, art in me, that we [the disciples and the Godhead] may be one.

3 Nephi 11:6-8

6 And behold, the third time they did understand the voice which they heard; and it said unto them:

7 Behold my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name-hear ye him.

8 And it came to pass, as they understood they cast their eyes up again towards heaven; and behold, they saw a Man descending out of heaven…

Jesus Existed Before His Incarnation

Ether 3: 14

14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.

Indeed, the majority of the Boo k of Mormon enforces the idea that Jesus existed before His Incarnation. [2]

When Jesus is in Heaven, Prior to His Incarnation, He is Treated as a Separate Personality Than His Father

2 Nephi 31:11-12, 15

11 And the Father said: Repent ye, repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son.

12 And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen me do.

15 And I heard a voice from the Father, saying: Yea, the words of my Beloved are true and faithful. He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.

Compare also to 3 Nephi 31:18:

18 And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life; yea, ye have entered in by the gate; ye have done according to the commandments of the Father and the Son; and ye have received the Holy Ghost, which witnesses of the Father and the Son, unto the fulfilling of the promise which he hath made, that if ye entered in by the way ye should receive.

Jesus Has the Title “Father” Because He Created All Things

Often, Jesus is referred to as the Father when we are specifically talking about Jesus as Father of Heaven and Earth because he created “all things”.

Mosiah 3:8

8 And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.

Hel 14:12

12 And also that ye might know of the coming of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and of earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and that ye might know of the signs of his coming, to the intent that ye might believe on his name.

Ether 4:7

7 And in that day that they shall exercise faith in me, saith the Lord, even as the brother of Jared did, that they may become sanctified in me, then will I manifest unto them the things which the brother of Jared saw, even to the unfolding unto them all my revelations, saith Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of the heavens and of the earth, and all things that in them are.

Alma 11:38-39

38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?

39 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;

Compare to 3 Nephi 9:15

15 Behold, I am Jesus Christ the Son of God. I created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are. I was with the Father from the beginning. I am in the Father, and the Father in me; and in me hath the Father glorified his name.

Merging with God

Brian Johnston — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 10:00:37 +0000

We talk all the time in our Church about returning to God some day. Everything we do in life is to gain experiences, and then to return. If we are pure and righteous, we can live with Him once more. What does this mean though? I think a lot of people picture us going from where we are to some distant place, like it is a separation by location, a journey from here to there. We go to the heaven. That is up in the sky somewhere right?

As I ponder this topic, a couple problems come to mind. We talk about seeing God again, that we will be able to visit him if we manage to get into the best kingdom. I can think of several instances in the scriptures where people have seen God from this natural, earthly state though. The story of Joseph Smith’s “First Vision” talks of being in physical location with God, yet we know Joseph was still alive and very human. So it doesn’t seem returning to God is merely seeing Him again and being able to interact.

The other issue that denies me satisfaction for my hunger to understand, is the “somewhere out in space” concept. I don’t think we will simply build a spaceship someday and travel to where God hangs out. I seem to recall some folks with a tower that tried that general idea, Babel was it? Yes. They thought they would just build a tower high enough and go see Him. It’s not an option.

What I find myself left with are simply Jesus Christ’s own words:

“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.”

-John 17:20-23, New King James Version

One option plainly before us is to take Jesus literally. It sounds to me like Jesus is saying we will merge with God through Him. He is the way, the truth and the life. We will become one, as they are one. That is indeed “returning” to God, when we merge back with Him/Her/They. It certainly creates a compelling reason for us to be pure from all sin. No unclean thing can dwell with God. How could it? We would introduce impurity through the incorporation of our essence into His.

My thoughts are far from a being new or original. It is woven into the religious traditions of all ages. Here’s just a sampling:

1. Theosis, a Christian concept developed extensively in the Eastern theologies.

2. Henosis, the Greek (and Egyptian) concept of attaining union with The Monad (The One, or Source).

3. Nonduality. This concept from ancient Hinduism explores the concept that all living things are pieces of God. You and I are God. I might be oversimplifying this idea, but that’s my basic understanding.

4. Bodhi, from Buddhist teachings, a state of enlightenment or awakening.

These are just a few quick references. The idea has been around a long time. I think we have this idea floating around in Mormonism too. The most disturbing notion is the thought of losing individual identity. Would we cease to exist if we merged with God? Do we share a common consciousness with Christ and God? It would seem so if we take Christ’s words at their face value.

What do you think?

On Three Almighties, One Moral Will, and Why This Post is a Complete Waste of Time

Bruce Nielson — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:00:55 +0000

The Match

Prepare for the ultimate philosophical smack down between a David and a Goliath! In one corner we have our champ Craig L. Blomberg who I have been told is one of the foremost New Testament scholars in the world. Simply put, he’s brilliant.

Our contender is my former missionary companion who was never anything but a junior companion.

Craig Blomberg comes out of his corner swinging, in How Wide the Divide? His upper-cut is the logical impossibility of the Mormon concept of becoming divine and having more than one Omnipotent “being.” He says,

Even simple logic should suggest that it is contradictory to have more than one omnipotent being; otherwise, for example, not only would God be able to judge me but I would be able to judge God. Both of us could theoretically destroy each other, and then there would be no eternally existing God. (How Wide the Divide? p. 212)

Well, spectators at home, Mormonism has taken a blow. It starts to fall and swoon. Blomberg may have just disproven Mormonism altogether using “simple logic.” So everyone on this website, please close up shop and go home, this show is over.

But wait, here comes my poor little companion out of his corner with a one-two punch response to Blomberg – and years before Blomberg ever tried his upper cut!

In passing my companion once mentioned to me that the Jehovah’s Witnesses attempt to disprove other Christians with the very same argument Blomberg uses. It seems the Jehovah’s Witnesses are fond of saying, “How can there be three Almighties? That’s a contradiction! All of Christianity is wrong, including Craig Blomberg’s form of it! [Note: okay, I admit I added that part.] Jehovah is the only Almighty and Jesus is not an Almighty! “My Father is Greater than I.” This is simple logic! All of Christendom should convert to the religion of the Jehovah’s Witnesses because we are the only ones being logical!”

“But Elder Nielson,” he said to me, “They are wrong. This isn’t logical. If multiple beings have the same purpose and will — if they never come into conflict over what they want — you can logically have an infinite number of Almighties.”

So there we have it: my former companion’s inadvertent response to Craig Blomberg’s “simple logic.” It would appear our Goliath is down for the count, logically speaking. He never made it past round 1.

The Aftermath: One Moral Will Theology

My former companion’s brief comment resulted into my additional scriptural studies on this topic. This proved a profitable approach to scripture study, particularly with the Book of Mormon.

I have named this doctrine: “One Moral Will Theology.”

At the same time my companion clarified for me the profound importance of Jesus’ teaching that He and the Father were one (John 10:30) and that He desired His disciples to be one with Him in the same way He is one with the Father. (John 17:11, 21) It turns out Jesus didn’t just want us to “be one” (D&C 38:27) because it’s unseemly when we don’t behave ourselves.

And it came to pass that I realized that in Mormon theology the Trinity Doctrine and Plurality of Gods Doctrine are really one and the same doctrine.

Logic and Reason: Are Human Beings Capable of Using Them Evenly?

All these years later, I am still dumbfounded at the ease with which my companion shunted aside such a logically “sounding” surface argument. It has made me question the purpose of even having logic/reason discussions such as this. If this is the best a massively brilliant person like Blomberg can do, how well am I doing?

But what really amazes me are the following three take aways from this match up:

Point #1: Even Really Smart People Are Incapable of Using Reason If It Goes Against Their Beliefs

How could someone as smart as Craig Blomberg not figure out that the Mormon view of Deity suffers no “simple logic” problem like he asserts? It’s certainly not a lack of familiarity with Mormon theology on this subject; his grasp of Mormon theology through out the book proves this.

And how could he not see that his “simple logic” could be – is — used against him just as easily and would mean little more?

Once we realize that to everyone in the world — save creedal Christians only — that “being” and “person” are synonyms, consider a slight rewording of Blomberg’s quote:

“Even simple logic should suggest that it is contradictory to have more than one omnipotent person; otherwise, for example, not only would the Father be able to judge Jesus but Jesus would be able to judge Father. Both of them could theoretically destroy each other, and then there would be no eternally existing God.”

Do you think Blomberg would still feel this is good logic? Is he ready to go join the Jehovah’s Witnesses now?

Point #2: We Don’t Differentiate Between “Logic” and “Assumption”

Perhaps more uncomfortable is the realization that Blomberg’s logic is actually sound; it’s just based on assumptions Mormons don’t hold. I will grant that his unspoken assumption plays to our intuition: the fact that no two persons on earth ever completely share one moral will and purpose. That is to say, we have no direct experience with people that share the same purpose and will so it’s hard for us to conceive. Blomberg’s “logic” is only “logic” if we start with the assumption that such a thing is impossible.

Worse yet, as per my reworded quote above, it would appear that Blomberg’s argument was based on an assumption that he does not himself hold to be true. What we have here is a double standard in his logic.

But this is only the beginning of my woes because:

Point #3: This Post is A Waste of All Our Time

Because either a) I think I’m being logical, but in reality I am just fooling myself to believe that I am because it’s convenient for my point of view (see point number 1); or b) I am being logical but it won’t matter because anyone that disagrees with me (including Blomberg if he were to read this) will fail to comprehend the logic presented because it’s convenient for their point of view.

Either way this post was pointless.

Offenders for a Word, Part 2 – Do Mormons Worship Jesus?

Bruce Nielson — Sat, 17 May 2008 07:00:33 +0000

In my last post I wrote about how we are all forced to take a thought and translate it into words and that this is a sloppy and imperfect process. To make matters worse, the person that has to take those words and decode them back into a thought will fail to do so correctly in many cases because they’ll get stuck on the words used, either because they don’t realize words have many meanings or because they have incentive to misunderstand.

In this post, I want to apply what we’ve discussed to a real life situation: Bruce R. McConkie’s talk on worshipping Jesus.

Case Study 2: Do Mormons Worship Jesus?

The word-offense in question comes from Bruce R. McConkie’s now famous (infamous?) talk entitled “Our Relationship with the Lord” where McConkie states that Mormons do not worship Jesus.

Anti-Mormons, with eyes full of glee, shout “Ha! Mormons don’t worship Jesus! We do!”

Disaffected Mormons say “McConkie says Mormons don’t worship Jesus, but Hinckley changed that doctrine and now Mormons do worship Jesus! (See! That’s proof the Church isn’t Divine!)”

And even believing Mormons might ask “So which is it? Do we or don’t we worship Jesus?”

But all such questions, by their very nature, are really just word-offense. None of the above questions attempt to capture the real nuance taught by Elder McConkie on the subject.

The question that a person sincere about understanding McConkie (and perhaps by extention, sincere about understanding the LDS Church) would ask is “In what sense does McConkie believe Mormons worship Jesus? In what sense do they not worship Jesus?”

Now through word-offense, it might be easier and more fun to attack McConkie and simplify his full nuanced beliefs into something he never taught, but let’s keep in mind that, thanks to the Bible, this can be done to any Old Testament-believing religion:

1 Chr 29:20 states: “And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the Lord your God. And all the congregation blessed the Lord God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the Lord, and the king.”

Through word-offense, I can now make the claim that all Bible-believing Christians and all Jews believe that King David was a god and that he is to be worshipped. And thanks to the single use of the word “worship” for both King David and God, I can wreak some real havoc against any counter arguments about how they are worshiped in different senses of the word. [1]

This issue of word-offense on the word “worship” is not just a Mormon issue.

With this in mind, let’s make a sincere attempt to understand McConkie’s full nuanced teachings about worshipping Jesus so that we can understand what he really meant.

Understanding the Purpose and Context of McConkie’s Talk

Bear in mind Joseph Smith’s teachings that we need to try to understand the context of a scriptural (or in this case Apostolic) statement to really understand it: “I have a key by which I understand the scriptures. I enquire [sic], what was the question which drew out the answer…” (Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 276 – 277)

McConkie tells us himself that he was concerned that members of the Church might be starting to pray unto Jesus directly to gain an inappropriately intimate relationship with the 2nd member of the Godhead that down plays or excludes other members:

Now, it is no secret that many false and vain and foolish things are being taught in the sectarian world and even among us about our need to gain a special relationship with the Lord Jesus.

He [the Father] is the one to whom we have direct access by prayer, and if there were some need–which there is not!–to single out one member of the Godhead for a special relationship, the Father, not the Son, would be the one to choose.

There are yet others who have an excessive zeal which causes them to go beyond the mark. Their desire for excellence is inordinate. In an effort to be truer than true they devote themselves to gaining a special, personal relationship with Christ that is both improper and perilous.

Another peril is that those so involved often begin to pray directly to Christ because of some special friendship they feel has been developed.

It is a fine and sacred line, but clearly there is a difference between a personal and intimate relationship with the Lord, which is improper, and one of worshipful adoration, which yet maintains the required reserve between us and him who has bought us with his blood.

McConkie Used the Word “Worship” in Multiple Senses

McConkie did not intend for us to understand that Mormons do not worship Jesus in any sense of the word. Again, he tells us this plainly:

I know perfectly well what the scriptures say about worshipping Christ and Jehovah, but they are speaking in an entirely different sense…

In the full, final, and ultimate sense of the word the divine decree is: ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy might, mind, and strength; and in the name of Jesus Christ thou shalt serve him. [D&C 59:5]‘

In What Sense Does McConkie Say it Is Appropriate to Worship Jesus?

In this very talk alone, I was able to make the following list of McConkie’s ideas of appropriate attitudes towards Jesus that would, in many people’s minds, constitute worship:

Awe
Reverence
Gratitude
Love
Service
Fellowship
Revealer and manifester of God the Father
The way to the Father
Praise his holy name
Ascribe unto Him honor, power, glory, might, and dominion
Treat Him as Lord, God, and King
Worshipful adoration

McConkie adds:

We do not have a fraction of the power we need to properly praise his holy name and ascribe unto him the honor and power and might and glory and dominion that is his. He is our Lord, our God, and our King.

In What Sense Does McConkie Say It is Not Appropriate to Worship Jesus?

As quoted previously, the only example he specifically gives of inappropriately worshiping Jesus is praying directly to Jesus or forming a special or more “intimate” relationship with Jesus to the exclusion of or down playing the other members of the Godhead. To McConkie, this distinction is the difference between a lesser form or “worship” and “worship” in the “true and saving sense.” (“Worship in the true and saving sense is reserved for God the first, the Creator,” says McConkie.)

It would certainly seem that the LDS Church does indeed believe in addressing all prayers to the Father alone, though in the name of the Son.

Worshipping Jesus as Part of the Godhead: Deconstructing McConkie’s Doctrine of Deity

Now this might seem to be the end of our inquiry here: McConkie says that we both do and don’t worship Jesus. We do in that we have certain feelings towards Him appropriate to Diety alone. We don’t in that we don’t directly address Him in prayer because that is reserved only for the Father. I think it would be significant if we could at least get this much out of McConkie’s talk and end our word-offense over it.

But as it turns out, there is more to the story, as McConkie himself tells us.

You see, McConkie, ever on the attack against his (in my opinion incorrect) understanding of “sectarian Trinitarianism” [2] was himself somewhat of a “Social Trinitarian.” For example, McConkie says:

Thus there are, in the Eternal Godhead, three persons–God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the Testator. These three are one — one God if you will – in purposes, in powers, and in perfections.

McConkie, as with all Social Trinitarians, does not seem to make a complete separation of the Godhead/Trinity. In my opinion, this proper understanding of McConkie’s own theology of God is necessary to understand McConkie fully.

To McConkie, while we are to address prayers only to the Father – this is McConkie’s key point – such worship is actually towards all members of the Godhead, in a sense, because they are all one.

Look one more time at this quote… and read it very carefully… it will pop out at you now:

He [the Father] is the one to whom we have direct access by prayer, and if there were some need — which there is not! – to single out one member of the Godhead for a special relationship, the Father, not the Son, would be the one to choose.

McConkie later adds:

First, be it remembered that most scriptures that speak of God or of the Lord do not even bother to distinguish the Father from the Son, simply because it doesn’t make any difference which God is involved. They are one. The words or deeds of either of them would be the words and deeds of the other in the same circumstance.

McConkie’s Full Teaching: We Do Worship Jesus When We Worship the Father Because They Are One

I do feel McConkie was not entirely clear on this last point within this particular talk. But if you will allow me to take McConkie’s teachings as a whole rather than forcing one talk to represent the man, consider the following McConkie quotes:

The Father and the Son are the objects of all true worship. [Note the use of a single word here for both members of the Godhead]… No one can worship the Father without also worshiping the Son. … It is proper to worship the Father, in the name of the Son, and also to worship the Son. ‘Believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out.’ (2 Ne 25:16, 29) (Mormon Doctrine, p. 848-849)

Though each God in the Godhead is a personage, separate and distinct from each of the others, yet they are ‘one God’” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 319)

There are three Gods – the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost – who, though separate in personality, are united as one in purpose, in plan, and in all the attributes of perfection. Thus anything, in these fields, which is revealed with reference to any of them is equally true of each of the others; and hence no attempt need be made in these fields to distinguish between them.

This understanding of McConkie’s beliefs helps us understand why McConkie believed in one very notable exception to praying to Jesus. He taught it was entirely appropriate if Jesus was bodily present. In his commentary of John 16:24 he said,

Perhaps as long as Jesus was personally with them [the disciples] many of their petitions were addressed directly to him rather than to the Father. Such was the course followed by the Nephites when the resurrected and glorified Lord ministered among them. They prayed directly to him and not to the Father.

He then quoted 3 Ne 19:17-18, 22: “…they pray unto me [Jesus]; and they pray unto me because I am with them…”

A Summary of McConkie’s Teachings About Worshiping Jesus

So what can we say for certain about McConkie’s teachings about worshiping Jesus?

McConkie taught that in one sense of the word “worship” we do not worship Jesus. This sense is specifically stated to be either a prayer addressed to Jesus when He isn’t bodily present or forming a special relationship with Jesus to the exclusion of the Father or the Godhead as a whole.
McConkie taught that in another sense we do worship Jesus. He gave many examples of different sense in which we do worship Jesus.
McConkie taught that we are to address all prayers to the Father in the name of the Son.
McConkie taught that we can and do worship Jesus, albeit indirectly, when we worship the Father.
McConkie taught that it was appropriate to pray to Jesus in one circumstance, when He’s physically present.

Based on my reading and understanding of every General Authority before and after McConkie, it seems to me that McConkie was really attempting to express exactly what the LDS Church has always taught and still teaches today about worship of Jesus. So I believe McConkie does in fact represent LDS beliefs on this subject even if we wish he had worded it differently.

Comparison to Other Christian Religions

What I find interesting is that the above teachings about worshiping Jesus seem quite similar to the teachings of many “orthodox Christian” religions on this very subject. [3]

I do not see this as a coincidence. I’ve learned to not overlook the ability of other religions to find truth from the Bible. On this very subject, it’s hard to miss -

Jesus only taught people to pray to the Father, not to Him. For example: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsover ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.” (John 16:23. See also Matt 26:39, John 15:16, and many others).
The Bible forces people to accept that there is more than one definition of the word “worship.” 1 Chr 29:20 is the best example of this, but there are others. [1]

Many non-Mormon Christians solely and exclusively address their prayers to the Father because of Jesus’ teachings on this subject. I am unaware of any non-Mormon Christian denomination that, at least officially, advocates having a special relationship with Jesus to the exclusion of or de-emphasizing the Father. [3]

The one area that we might have some disagreement between McConkie’s teachings and other Christian religions (and possibly even Mormonism) is in having an “intimate” relationship with Jesus. But here we again bump into word-offense. What does the word “intimate” really mean as McConkie uses it? As McConkie uses the term contextually, do other Christian religions really believe in having, as it were, an inappropriate relationship that doesn’t “maintain the required reserve between us” and God? [4]

Notes:

[1] Margaret Baker, an unfortunate favorite of Mormon apologists, actually does try to make the argument, based on this verse alone, that Jews believed King David was a god in the same way other polytheistic religions believed their king was a god. But at least Margaret Baker was tolerant enough to not claim that all modern Christians are really secretly polytheists because their scriptures teach king David is God. That would be word-offense.

[2] McConkie bore a misunderstanding the traditional view of the Trinity, as do many Mormons, as well as many non-Mormon Christians: “They say he is one-god-in-three, and three-gods-in-one who neither hears, nor sees, nor speaks.” He thought the Trinity was Modalism.

[3] Okay, I admit there are exceptions. On my mission there was a lady that would start out her prayers “O Holy Spirit of Jesus.” When asked why she did she’d say “well they are all the same person!” In other words she had misunderstood the Trinity doctrine to be Modalism. My real point here is that amongst non-Modalist Christians, which technically speaking is all of them if they understood their doctrines, there are few if any Christians that believe in worshiping Jesus in some special sense as McConkie is fighting against. (In my next article I’ll address how this means McConkie was himself taking word-offense against other Christians.)

[4] Remember, these are the very same Christians that feel our doctrine of deification is blasphemous because there needs to be a strong separation between creator and created. From their point of view it is we Mormons that believe in having an “intimate” relationship with Jesus and the Father that is inappropriate and without the required reserve appropriate for worshipful adoration.

The Nature of God and Bible Bashing Sharing

AdamF — Sat, 03 May 2008 16:17:15 +0000

Like many members of the church, I believe that humankind is of the same species as God; that our Heavenly Parents are like us only on a higher level of development. To me, the doctrine is one of the most awe-inspiring and exciting aspects of Mormon theology.

I have heard enough slams of Mormon theology on this issue, as well as plenty bashing the idea of the Trinity in Mormon circles. Unfortunately, I have to admit I have scoffed at the doctrine of the Holy Trinity in the past. I was amazed (to say the least) when I first read the Anathasian creed – unsure at how people could, or would even want to, believe in “The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible.” However, what does one’s belief about the substance or shape of God have to do with the purpose of religion?

I also do not think “appealing to the Bible” is useful in settling the matter of the nature of God and humankind. While I may quote a scripture like Psalms 82:6: “We shall be even gods, if we shall deserve to be among those of whom He declared, ‘I have said, Ye are gods.” Someone might retort, “that is misinterpreting the scripture, it actually means ______.” Then they may quote from Deuteronomy: “To you it was shown, that you might know that the Lord Himself is God; there is none other besides Him.” Debate over which belief is Biblical will not achieve much in the way understanding or respect.

If one believes in the Trinity, derives motivation from that doctrine to live his religion more fully, and if I get the same from believing in a Mormon concept of God as I do, why does it matter that we do not agree? Does one of the many Christian conceptualizations of God inspire more visits “to the fatherless and widows in their affliction,” or keep one “unspotted from the world?”

I think one of the keys to this is giving up on the idea of debating for the purpose of trying to win. Understanding each other is much more important, especially on a site like this. There is a lot we can learn from each other, and through my association with a Catholic friend I have come to respect and understand better Christians who believe differently about God than I do.

In the spirit of understanding and inquiry:

What do you believe about God?
Where does your belief come from?
What scripture(s) or teachings best describe you belief?
In what ways are your beliefs about God manifested in your life?
Which is more important: the personal characteristics of God, or what God looks like?

Mormons as Trinitarians

Bruce Nielson — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 07:00:47 +0000

Mention the word “Trinity” to a group of Mormons and the response you’ll get probably will be “I don’t believe that false doctrine of Satan!” [1] Mormons often even feel more kinship with religions like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who also reject the Trinity doctrine, than we do with orthodox Christians on this topic. But do we Mormons even understand what the doctrine of Trinity really is?

I had an interesting experience recently. I was engaged in an ongoing discussion with a Protestant friend on the internet. I described my beliefs about God and “the Trinity” and she described hers. I went to great lengths to explain exactly what I believed. At the end of it all, she said “I think it’s only fair to mention though that your belief in the Trinity and my belief in the Trinity are a close as you can get without them being the same.” My Mormon instincts wanted to shout “No they aren’t!” But after time to think about it, I’m now convinced that she’s right. [2]

It helps to understand that the actual doctrine of Trinity can be summarized as “one God in three persons.” This might shock some Mormons that think the Trinity doctrine is “one God that takes three forms.” No, sorry, that doctrine is actually called “Modalism.”

“But wait!” someone might cry, I’ve been told by an orthodox Christian while on my mission that God is like water: He can take the form of a liquid, solid, or ice! Well, it would seem that the doctrine of Trinity, as taught by Catholic and Protestant Churches, is difficult to understand and so many Christians finally just settle into Modalism in an attempt to wrap their heads around it. But orthodox Christians aren’t supposed to be describing God in this way because it’s a misunderstanding of what their Churches teach. [3]

So armed with a more correct understanding of what the doctrine of Trinity is, I want to pose a question: Why do we Mormons run from the term “Trinity,” even going so far as to use a replacement word: “Godhead.” [4] Don’t Mormons believe in one God? Don’t Mormons believe in three persons in this God? Of course we do.

I assume the reason we dislike the word “Trinity” is because it carries with it connotations of the Athanasius Creed and substance theology (i.e. the Nicean Creed). Of course we should reject these Creedal extensions to the doctrine of Trinity, but I think it’s wrong for us to assume that “the Trinity” itself equates to them.

What is it we reject about the Athanasius Creed and substance theology? The biggest issue is that they have been elevated to being the same as or above scripture. But Mormons have issues with some of their content as well.

In the case of the Athanasius creed, the offending point seems to be “And yet they are not three Gods: but one God” complete with anathema curse if you ever claim otherwise, in any sense. [5] Our issue here is that this is a verifiably logical contradiction. [6] The Athanasius creed is more or less Mormon doctrine up until it insists that there is a damning ban on referring to the Trinity as numerically three Gods, even in a sense. [7]

In the case of the Nicene creed our rejection seems over the idea that the Trinity is “one of substance.” I sometimes feel this is like requiring everyone to believe “God is Abracadabra” or they are damned. I have no idea what it means, nor does the person damning me for not believing it. I can’t realistically claim that I do or don’t believe in it, but I feel that a loving God would never require such a profession of me.

But does Mormon rejection of the Athanasius formula and the Nicene Creed equate to a rejection of “the doctrine of Trinity?” Consider this Wikipedia article on “Social Trinity.” Do you see anything in Social Trinitarianism, at least a Wikipedia defines it, that Mormons object to? If Mormons were Social Trinitarians, wouldn’t we still be Trinitarians?

Now let’s do a quick exercise. I think many Mormons believe that Jehovah’s Witnesses are closer to Mormon theology on the nature of God than orthodox-Christians. But look over this list and compare:

Orthodox-Christians:

Believe in one God
Believe in three persons that make up that one God
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate persons
Believe the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one
Believe Jesus is fully Divine and fully God.
Believe Jesus was also fully a man.
Affirm to creedal formulas that reject as damning any wording that involves there being numerically three Gods.
Affirm to creedal formulas that claim the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are “one in substance” though they don’t define what that means.

Jehovah’s Witnesses:

Believe in a greater God, Jehovah (the Father), and a sub god, Michael the Archangel or Jesus.
Jesus is not fully divine. That is to say, Jesus is not God.
When they say Jesus “is divine” they mean it more in the sense that a being created by God to be holy, like an angel, might be said to be “divine.”
Jesus and the Father are separate persons
The Holy Ghost is not a person at all, just the power of God

Looking over this list, I see a lot more in common between Mormon theology and orthodox Christianity than I do with Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Should we, as Mormons, avoid the word “Trinity” or “Trinitarian” when describing our beliefs? Or do we have as much right to it because of our belief in a Tri-Unity God? Perhaps we should claim these terms as our own but with our own unique twist whereby we reject the Athanasius creed and substance theology as a way as understanding that Tri-unity better? Or should we just avoid the term all together?

Similar thoughts on the Bloggernacle:

http://millennialstar.org/2008/02/27/trinitarian-mormons-orson-pratt/

http://www.libertypages.com/cgw/2008/03/07/problems-with-mormons-and-the-trinity/

Notes:

[1] I exaggerate

[2] Lest some of you think I didn’t really fully explain the Mormon view of the Trinity, our discuss included: 1) An argument over the meaning of every “Trinity” verse in the Bible, 2) a discussion about how Mormons believe the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are not only three separate persons, but they are physically separate and the Father is even embodied just like Jesus is, 3) an explanation that Mormons are comfortable with calling the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost “one God” in a certain sense and “three Gods” in a different sense, 4) a thorough review of what the Apostolic/Early Christian Fathers taught about the doctrine of Trinity, 5) a discussion about divine investiture, though I didn’t call it by that name.

Interestingly, our main point of disagreement was over whether or not Jesus could, in some sense (a lesser sense), be considered as the same person as the Father. In other words our main disagreement was over a slightly modalistic and non-Trinitarian twist that she personally held, not with the actual doctrine of Trinity.

[3] In fact, Modalism is a condemned heresy by every major Christian denomination. Just as some Mormons don’t understand all Mormon doctrine, we need to cut other Christians some slack over not understanding all of their doctrines. However, I find irony in the fact that such modalistic Christians often condemned my views of the Trinity as making me a non-Christian when in reality my views are closer to what their Churches teach than what they believe.

[4] “Godhead” is really just a word that means “divine nature.” “The Divine Nature” to a Mormon is the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, thus the connection.

[5] There are other points we could quibble over, such as “The Father incomprehensible” or “three Persons are coeternal, and coequal.” But I would argue that if understood in a certain way, Mormons could agree with such statements.

[6] If God is made up of three persons, each divine, than in a logical sense they are each a God and thus numerically we have three Gods, even if you choose not to normally speak of it that way. As was shown in this post, this is provable logic. If there is some other way to think of these words such that it’s not a contradiction, the burden is on the orthodox-Christian to explain himself better prior to using such a statement as a way of defining others as non-Christians or as anathema.

[7] Owen and Mosser, two Evangelical Christian scholars, argue about the orthodox view of the doctrine of Trinity: “We agree that a number of the church fathers developed theories to explain the oneness and threeness of the members of the Godhead that were unorthodox. However, these various theories were insufficient for very good reasons, the main one being that they simply did not incorporate all the relevant biblical data, just as we do not think the Latter-day Saint view does.” (link) But of course there would always be an infinite number of contradictory ways to incorporate a set of data. What they miss is that there could never be a compelling case to emphasize one contradictory explanation over another. So how could they possibly know substance theology or the contradictory Athanasius formula better represent the truth than the Mormon view that they feel contradicts the Biblical data? At worst, Mormons are as bad off as they already are.

BoM Doctrine	Modalism	Trinitarianism	Tritheism	Swedenborgian
Jesus is God	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Jesus is the Son of God, the Only Begotten of His Father	Figurative	Yes	Yes	Figurative
Jesus is Worthy of Worship	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
When Jesus is On Earth, He is Treated as a Separate Personality from His Father	No	Yes	Yes	No
Jesus Existed Before His Incarnation	No	Yes	Yes	No
When Jesus is in Heaven, Prior to His Incarnation, He is Treated as a Separate Personality Than His Father	No	Maybe*	Yes	No
Jesus Has the Title “Father” Because He Created All Things	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Jesus Fully Represents and Even Identifies as the Father	Yes	No	No	Figurative
Jesus, Prior to His Birth, is a “Spirit Body” with a Physical Image – Not a Formless Spirit Filling Everything	No	No	Maybe	No
We are Physically Created In the Image of God	No	No	Maybe	No
The Spirit of the Lord is Also Presented as Being With a Human Form	No	No	Maybe	No
The Idea that God Is, Was, and Always Will Be a Spirit Is Considered Heresy	No	No	Maybe	No
Jesus is the Son of God Because of His Physical Birth	No	No	Maybe	No
Eschewing creedal formulas and language	Yes	No	Yes	Yes