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.

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:

1. The Father (identity) is God (identity)
2. The Son (identity) is God (identity)
3. The Father (identity) is not the Son (identity)
4. 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.’”

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.

See also Mosiah 13:28,33-34; Helaman 8:22-23; 3 Nephi 11:10,14;

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. 

See also 2 Nephi 25:12; Helaman 16:18;

Jesus Fully Represents and Even Identifies as the Father

But Jesus is also presented as being called the Father because He fully represents and even identifies as His Father. This is specifically stated as being because they share the same will. Thus they are “one God” because they have one moral will. The very best example of this is the incorporable Mosiah 15:1-5 

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son-

3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son-

4 And they [not "He"] are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people. 

This passage is so full of meat that we’ll have to revisit it under another point later.

Against all odds or sense, Mosiah 15:1-5 is the passage most used to “prove” that the Book of Mormon teaches modalism. But modalism does not teach anything like this passage. The closest fit to a literal interpretation of this passage is actually Swedenborgian, not modalism. [3]

However, it’s not really Swedenborgian either since v. 2 specifically states that Jesus is God (in v.4) due to subjecting His Flesh to the will of the Father. To the best of my knowledge, Swedenborg had no corollary to this. And this is to say nothing of the rest of the context of the Book of Mormon, which does not allow for Swedenborgian teachings at all.

Ether 4:12 also specifically teaches that Jesus fully represents the Father

12 And whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of me; for good cometh of none save it be of me. I am the same that leadeth men to all good; he that will not believe my words will not believe me-that I am; and he that will not believe me will not believe the Father who sent me. For behold, I am the Father, I am the light, and the life, and the truth of the world.

Compare also to Morm 9:12 and Ether 3:14;

The standard Mormon “explanation” for why Jesus identifies as His Father in some cases is to refer to the doctrine of Divine Investiture. I will have to deal with this in a future post.

Jesus, Prior to His Birth, is a “Spirit Body” with a Physical Image – Not a Formless Spirit Filling Everything

This fact comes out when the brother of Jared sees the pre-mortal Jesus and see a physical form like a man’s.

Ether 3:6-8

6 And it came to pass that when the brother of Jared had said these words, behold, the Lord stretched forth his hand and touched the stones one by one with his finger. And the veil was taken from off the eyes of the brother of Jared, and he saw the finger of the Lord; and it was as the finger of a man, like unto flesh and blood; and the brother of Jared fell down before the Lord, for he was struck with fear.

7 And the Lord saw that the brother of Jared had fallen to the earth; and the Lord said unto him: Arise, why hast thou fallen?

8 And he saith unto the Lord: I saw the finger of the Lord, and I feared lest he should smite me; for I knew not that the Lord had flesh and blood. 

It might be tempting to say that God was just taking a physical form so that the brother of Jared had something to look at. But the actual passage does not allow for that possibility because of the reason Jesus Himself gives for why the brother of Jesus saw a physical form:

Ether 3:13

13 And when he had said these words, behold, the Lord showed himself unto him, and said: Because thou knowest these things ye are redeemed from the fall; therefore ye are brought back into my presence; therefore I show myself unto you. 

According to this Book of Mormon passage, to be in the presence of God is to be physically standing next to Him. So the physical form of Jesus is literally His presence. The popular Christian idea that God has no physical presence, because God is everywhere present fully, is thus eliminated as a possibility. [4]

We are Physically Created In the Image of God

Ether 3:15-16

15 And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.

16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh. 

Gen 1:26-27 is specified in the Book of Mormon as being a physical image, not just sharing having free will like God has or some other spiritualized interpretation. This is one of the most ignored aspects of the Book of Mormon, that it declared a physical God in which we are physically the image of. Compare this passage also to Mosiah 7:27

27 And because he said unto them that Christ was the God, the Father of all things, and said that he should take upon him the image of man, and it should be the image after which man was created in the beginning; or in other words, he said that man was created after the image of God, and that God should come down among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood, and go forth upon the face of the earth- 

It’s difficult to twist this passage to mean anything but that Gen 1:26-27′s “image of God” was meant to be a literal image, not a figurative one because it specifies that Jesus’ human form was the image of man because we were in the image of God. In other words, it specifies it both ways so that you can’t miss the point.

The Spirit of the Lord is Also Presented as Being With a Human Form

1 Nephi 11:1, 11

1 …I was caught away in the Spirit of the Lord…

11 And I said unto him: To know the interpretation thereof-for I spake unto him as a man speaketh; for I beheld that he was in the form of a man; yet nevertheless, I knew that it was the Spirit of the Lord; and he spake unto me as a man speaketh with another. 

Compare this wording also with 1 Nephi 1:12, 1 Nephi 7:14-15, 1 Nephi 13:15 and many others were the Spirit of the Lord is referred to.

The Idea that God Is, Was, and Always Will Be a Spirit Is Considered Heresy

The heretical Zoramites believed that God was a spirit, is a spirit, and will always be a spirit forever. This shocks our true believers who immediately recognize the heresy involved.

Alma 31:12-15

12 Now, when they had come into the land, behold, to their astonishment they found that the Zoramites had built synagogues, and that they did gather themselves together on one day of the week, which day they did call the day of the Lord; and they did worship after a manner which Alma and his brethren had never beheld;

14 Therefore, whosoever desired to worship must go forth and stand upon the top thereof, and stretch forth his hands towards heaven, and cry with a loud voice, saying:

15 Holy, holy God; we believe that thou art God, and we believe that thou art holy, and that thou wast a spirit, and that thou art a spirit, and that thou wilt be a spirit forever. 

Jesus is the Son of God Because of His Physical Birth

I previously used Mosiah 15:1-5, but let’s look at it again with an eye to what we mean when we refer to Jesus as the Son of God

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son-

3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son- 

Since the rest of the Christian world considers Jesus the only Begotten because He was Begotten before the world began [5], this passage is significant theologically and separates the Book of Mormon view of Christology from the rest of the Christian worlds.

What The Book of Mormon Doesn’t Teach

What the Book of Mormon doesn’t say is as important as what it does say. It does not use the phrase “of one substance.” It does not tell us that Jesus and the Father are “one person.” It does not tell us God is a formless spirit. It does not tell us that God is equally present everywhere. It does not develop an Athanasius-like formula of “one God.” There is no mention of “persons” vs. “beings.” In fact, it does not use any creedal phrases at all.

What the Book of Mormon Doesn’t Confront

On the other hand, the Book of Mormon never actually deny any popular view of God directly. Though clearly not Modalistic or Trinitarian, nevertheless, only a careful parser ever feels their modalistic or Trinitarian views are deeply threatened by the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon did not force people to confront their false views of God right away but instead left plenty that a Modalist or a Trinitarian would relate to or feel comfortable with, even while preparing them for something else later.

Full Analysis

The following chart summarizes the relationship between what the Book of Mormon actually teaches compared to the theologies of Joseph Smith’s and our day:

* Clearly Trinitarianism does teach that in heaven Jesus and the Father are seperate personalities. However, there seems to be at least some discomfort over something as blatant as 2 Ne 31:11-15 where Jesus and the Father both talk to a prophet from heaven. So I listed this one as “maybe.”

Conclusions

In conclusion [6], we can now easily see that The Book of Mormon doctrine of deity is not fully Modalistic, nor Trinitarian, nor Tritheistic but does share some attributes with each. Each might even be considered an appropriate approximation of the nature of God, to some degree, but none is definitive. In reality, the Book of Mormon denies all of the popular existing theologies about God. [7] 

Notes:

[1] One poster once quoted Melodie Moench Charles to me as, in his view, a fair evaluation of the Book of Mormon’s doctrine of deity: “Although modalism is the best description for Book of Mormon theology generally, it is not apt in every instance. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Book of Mormon authors were intentionally constructing a theology that would fit any previous or future model or label. Nor did they seem concerned about making sure that the theology of any one part of the book was always consistent with the theology of other parts.”

I do not disagree with this analysis. In essence, Charles tells us that the Book of Mormon teaches Modalism, except for the parts that don’t.

Likewise, I feel that any of the following statements are also equally true:

The Book of Mormon teaches Trinitarianism, except for the parts that don’t.

The Book of Mormon teaches Tritheism, except for the parts that don’t.

Charles wrote her article, “Book of Mormon Christology”, as a response to how Mormons often, in her view, retrofit their doctrines of Deity onto the Book of Mormon. A point that is often valid. Yet she never realizes she’s fallen into the same trap herself, ignoring all evidence that runs counter to her theory of Nephite theology.

[2] Charles uses Ether 3:14 as the sole nod to the anti-modalism inherent on the Book of Mormon throughout: “On one point the Book of Mormon’s christology differs from what early Christian modalists believed. Although Jesus’ description of himself as Father and Son in Ether 3:14 is thoroughly modalistic, its context is not. In this same verse Jesus says, “I was prepared from the foundations of the world to redeem my people.” This, coupled with his identifying himself as Jesus Christ a millennium before his birth, suggests a “pre-existent” Christ. Always concerned to preserve the notion of the unity of God, early Christian modalists rejected the idea that Christ existed apart from his father prior to his incarnation. They would not have attributed to Christ any of God’s activity prior to Jesus’ birth. For example, they interpreted John 1:1-18 as describing the Word’s creation of the world allegorically, not as Christ’s literal pre-existent activity (Kelly 1960, 120).” Charles in “Book of Mormon Christology.” It is unclear why she ignored all the other anti-modalistic statements found throughout the Book of Mormon.

[3] Wikipedia explains: “Both Michael Servetus and Emanuel Swedenborg have been interpreted as being proponents of Modalism, however, neither describes God as appearing in three modes. Both describe God as the One Divine Person, Jesus Christ, who has a Divine Soul of Love, Divine Mind of Truth, and Divine Body of Activity. Jesus, through a process of uniting his human form to the Divine, became entirely One with His Divine Soul from the Father to the point of having no distinction of personality.” This is not classic modalism. In fact, the only thing it has in common with modalism is the lack of three “persons.”

[4] This doesn’t mean that God isn’t “omni-present.” It just means that that word “omni-present” means something other than God being physically present everywhere, as some Christians assume. 

Note: In the comments below, Aaron pointed out that Evagelicals make a distiction between physical presence and personal presence and thus, using an Evagelical point of view, it is possible for them to believe in a physical presence of God distinct from His personal presence.

Mormons make a distinction between their belief that God is everywhere present, which is understood in a spiritual sense, but not everywhere physically present. See the comments for further discussion.

Thus the two points of view converge moreso that I expected.

[5] “One of the creeds says that Christ is the Son of God ‘begotten, not created”; and it adds ‘begotten by his Father before all worlds.’ Will you please get it quite clear that this has nothing to do with the fact that when Christ was born on earth as a man, that man was the son of a virgin?” (Mere Christianity, p. 138)

[6] I apologize if I missed your favorite verse or excluded a reference to something that I should have included. Collecting all the statements in the Book of Mormon about the Doctrine of Deity together in one place isn’t as easy as it looks to. I’ll have to rewrite this article after I next read the Book of Mormon and find more passages that develop its collective doctrine of deity.

[7] As does the Bible.

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.

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:

1. Believe in one God
2. Believe in three persons that make up that one God
3. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate persons
4. Believe the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one
5. Believe Jesus is fully Divine and fully God.
6. Believe Jesus was also fully a man.
7. Affirm to creedal formulas that reject as damning any wording that involves there being numerically three Gods.
8. 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:

1. Believe in a greater God, Jehovah (the Father), and a sub god, Michael the Archangel or Jesus.
2. Jesus is not fully divine. That is to say, Jesus is not God.
3. 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.”
4. Jesus and the Father are separate persons
5. 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.