View source for Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 3

{{Main Page}}  
{{H1
|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 3
|H=Response to claims made in "Chapter 3: The Trinity"
|S=
|L1=
|T=[[../../|Mormonism 101]]
|A=Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson
|<=[[../Chapter 2|Chapter 2: Jesus]]
|>=[[../Chapter 4|Chapter 4: Preexistence and the Second Estate]]
}}
<!-- INSERT CHART HERE -->
<onlyinclude>
{{H2
|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 3
|H=Response to claims made in Mormonism 101, "Chapter 3: The Trinity"
|S=
|L1=Response to claim: 51 - Several church councils, in which men fought for their own theories, foisted upon the Church the incomprehensible and unnatural doctrine of "one in three and three in one"
|L2=Response to claim: 51-52 - The authors claim that "Mormon leaders" have "mocked and slandered" the concept of the Trinity despite it being "the heart and soul of Christian theology"
|L3=Response to claim: 53 - The Bible "declares that there is only one God"
|L4=Response to claim: 53 - The commandment "Thou shalt have not other gods before me" it interpreted by the authors to mean that "one is not to even believe that there are other gods"
|L5=Response to claim: 53 - The Mormon may insist his worship does not extend beyond the one he calls Elohim, but context demands that this must also involve his faith
|L6=Response to claim: 53-54 - The Book of Isaiah offers perhaps more verses in defence of monotheism than any other
|L7=Response to claim: 54 - the LDS idea of deification is unbiblical
|L8=Response to claim: 54 - the LDS Church rejects the historic church's concept of the Trinity
|L9=Response to claim: 54-55 - Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he answered, No
|L10=Response to claim: 56 - "the Trinity was not an invention of the early church; rather, it was a definitive response designed to explain the biblical position of the church"
|L11=Response to claim: 57 - Mormons believe that the Trinity was "an invention of the apostate church," while Christianity believes it is "a doctrine that came from biblical origins"
}}
</onlyinclude>

==Response to claim: 51 - Several church councils, in which men fought for their own theories, foisted upon the Church the incomprehensible and unnatural doctrine of "one in three and three in one"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=Mormonism 101
|claim=
The authors quote John A. Widtsoe,
<blockquote>
Several church councils, in which men fought for their own theories, foisted upon the Church the incomprehensible and unnatural doctrine of "one in three and three in one." ...This false doctrine, which has been nurtured through the centuries, is an excellent illustration of philosophical-theological error and nonsense.
</blockquote>
|authorsources=<br>
#John A. Widtsoe, ''Evidences and Reconciliations'' 1:58
}}
{{propaganda|Let's look at the Widtsoe quote in context. As is always advisable when examining critical literature, it is best to fill in the portions omitted by the authors:
<blockquote>
'''In numerous references in the Book of Mormon, the members of the Godhead stand out as distinct personages. The Bible, if read fully and intelligently, teaches that the Holy Trinity is composed of individual Gods.'''
<br><br>
'''The early Christian Church, on its way to apostasy, departed from this truth.''' Several church councils, in which men fought for their own theories, foisted upon the Church the incomprehensible and unnatural doctrine of "one in three and three in one." '''They twisted the doctrine of unity of nature and of purpose among the Trinity into an oneness of personality. They would quote Jesus' prayer to his Father, that his disciples "may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us." (John 17:21) Yet at the same time they ignored the clear evidence in the prayer that Jesus was on earth, at that time, speaking to a Being elsewhere; and the equally clear meaning of the prayer that he did not propose that his disciples should be fused into one personage, but that they should be of one mind with him and his Father.''' This false doctrine, which has been nurtured through the centuries, is an excellent illustration of philosophical-theological error and nonsense.
<br><br>
Latter-day Saints prefer to cling to the revealed word, and to read the word of God intelligently. Only that which we can understand can be used safely by mortal men; that which is incomprehensible is useless to us.
</blockquote>

What does this quote tell about LDS doctrine, and what about the rejection of the concept of the Trinity?
#The "Trinity" was accepted as "Holy" by Widtsoe. It is a term that has revered place in LDS theology. It is said to be taught in the Bible. Therefore "Trinity" has not been attacked by the LDS, nor slandered, but the understanding of the Trinity is different, and those different understandings are attacked.
#There are three distinct personages in the Trinity.
#The three personages are one in nature and purpose.
#The oneness of personality is rejected.

So, basically it is modalism that is rejected, namely the same modalism that, though not official doctrine of Christian Churches, is believed by the majority of Christian believers.

Further, just as the Eastern Orthodox Christians, the Psychological Trinity with its only distinction of personages lying in the different relations between the fathership, the sonship and the exhalation, is seen as a modalistic variance, and therefore rejected.

If one wants to find fault with Widtsoe in this, it is only that he knew not enough about the Psychological Trinity to formulate his rejection more fittingly. He primarily attacks what he has been told about the Latin Trinity by its professors. And, as Trobisch said, most of those do not know what the traditional Trinity is about.

A Protestant Christian might also find fault with the expression: "The Bible, if read fully and intelligently, teaches that the Holy Trinity is composed of individual Gods."

Just as many traditional Christians err when saying "Father, Son and God are one person," the expression "the Trinity is composed of individual Gods" might be not entirely correct, but it is not wrong either.
}}
*{{Detail_old|Nature of God/Godhead and the Trinity}}

==Response to claim: 51-52 - The authors claim that "Mormon leaders" have "mocked and slandered" the concept of the Trinity despite it being "the heart and soul of Christian theology"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=Mormonism 101
|claim=
The authors claim that "Mormon leaders" have "mocked and slandered" the concept of the Trinity despite it being "the heart and soul of Christian theology."
|authorsources=<br>
#Larry Dahl, "The Morning Breaks, The Shadows Flee," ''Ensign'' (April 1997) 14-15.
*Smith, ''Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith'', 370, 372.
*Bruce R. McConkie, ''The Promised Messiah'', vol. 1, 117-118.
*Gordon B. Hinckley, ''Church News'', 4 July 1998, 2.
}}
{{propaganda|The authors of Mormonism 101 have reduced quotes to change their meaning. Had they provided the full context of the quotes by Widtsoe and Smith, the reader would have seen that they reject modalism and semi-modalism and focus on the three persons of the Trinity.

Both McConkie and Hinckley reject the notion of the numeric oneness of the three divine Persons. The thrust of the LDS argument against the modalism of lay Christians and the semi-modalism of Latin Trinity has not changed since Joseph Smith.

Let's have a look at President Hinckley's words, as quoted by the authors:
<blockquote>
The world wrestles with the question of who God is, and in what form He is found. Some say that the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are one. I wonder how they ever arrive at that. How could Jesus have prayed to Himself when he uttered the Lord's Prayer? How could He have met with Himself when He was on the Mount of Transfiguration? No. He is a separate being.<ref>''Church News'' (4 July 1998): 2, quoted in {{CriticalWork:McKeever and Johnson:Mormonism 101|pages=52}}</ref>
</blockquote>

These words, to the authors, are antithetical to the biblical message. Let's take it one by one. What does President Hinckley reject in his message? It is the numerical oneness and identity of the Father with the Son and the Holy Ghost. Nothing more, nothing less. If we are to believe the authors, the doctrine of the Trinity is just that: In uttering the Lord's prayer, Jesus prayed to Himself, on the Mount of Transfiguration, He met Himself. To suggest otherwise is to reject the biblical message.

We have already seen that this is not what even the Psychological Trinity is about. The authors proved what Trobisch said: Most lay Christians don't understand the Trinity, and it takes more to get a glimpse of what the Trinity is about than just having a Masters in Divinity.
}}
*{{Detail_old|Nature of God/Godhead and the Trinity}}

==Response to claim: 53 - The Bible "declares that there is only one God"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=Mormonism 101
|claim=
The Bible "declares that there is only one God."
|authorsources=<br>
#{{s|1|Chronicles|17|20}}
*{{s||Mark|12|29}}
}}
{{information}}
*{{Detail_old|Nature of God/Polytheism}}

==Response to claim: 53 - The commandment "Thou shalt have not other gods before me" it interpreted by the authors to mean that "one is not to even believe that there are other gods"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=Mormonism 101
|claim=
The commandment "Thou shalt have not other gods before me" it interpreted by the authors to mean that "one is not to even believe that there are other gods."
|authorsources=<br>
#{{s||Exodus|20|3}}
}}
{{misinformation}}
*{{Detail_old|Nature of God/Polytheism}}

==Response to claim: 53 - The Mormon may insist his worship does not extend beyond the one he calls Elohim, but context demands that this must also involve his faith==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=Mormonism 101
|claim=
The authors continue quoting scriptures:
<blockquote>
This certainly is a superficial interpretation, for many passages show this oneness far surpasses the mere notion of agreement. For example, the Ten Commandments strongly warn, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Exod. 20:3). The Mormon may insist his worship does not extend beyond the one he calls Elohim, but context demands that this must also involve his faith (he is not to even believe there are other Gods).
</blockquote>
}}
{{misinformation|Well, in fact there's nothing in Exodus 20 that claims that we should not believe that there are other gods. If that were the case, Deuteronomy 10:17, Joshua 22:22, Psalms 136:2, and Daniel 2:47 and 11:36 would be against that commandment. Or would McKeever and Johnson rather have us believe that these passages refer to God as "God of Idols," instead of "God of Gods?"
}}

==Response to claim: 53-54 - The Book of Isaiah offers perhaps more verses in defence of monotheism than any other==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=Mormonism 101
|claim=
This leads us to the next interesting claim:
<blockquote>
The Book of Isaiah offers perhaps more verses in defence of monotheism than any other. Throughout chapters 43 through 45, this book emphasizes the existence of one God and one God only (see Isa. 43: 10; 44:6; 45:5-6, 14, 21-22; 46:9). It is difficult to interpret passages such as Isaiah 43: 10 as merely referring to several Gods being one in purpose since it rejects the possibility of other gods existing either before or after the one true God. One would think that even the God of Mormonism would be aware of the many gods who allegedly exist with him, or for that matter, the god that begat his mortal body. Yet Isaiah 44:8 tells us that the God of the Bible doesn't even know of other gods! Are we to believe in the context of Mormonism that Joseph Smith's God can't remember who his own father was?
</blockquote>
}}
{{misinformation|That's a really interesting question, but let's redirect it back to the authors: If the Father and the Son are one being, how can Jesus say:
<blockquote>
Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God.34
</blockquote>

Jesus really used unambiguous words to proclaim that God not only was God to his disciples, but Jesus' God, too.

Let's continue to Paul. Galatians 3:19-20 talks about mediatorship and then tells us "Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one."35 So, if there's a mediator, there have to be two parties, and the mediator is not party himself. Hebrews 9:15 calls Jesus the mediator of the New Covenant. Those two scriptures form a nice contradiction to McKeever and Johnson's oneness claims, which I don't think they can resolve. Every scripture they threw at us brings them into either rejecting their own position or the New Testament testimony of Christ.

How, though, can the LDS reconcile their view with those scriptures in Isaiah? That's easy; you just have to take a look at Isaiah 44:6-8:
<blockquote> 
Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God.
<br><br>
And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? And the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them.
<br><br>
Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared [it]? ye [are] even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, [there is] no God; I know not [any].
</blockquote>

The question here is: Who has revealed himself to the world? Which God has ever communicated with man? Who has revealed the future? Who but He who brought up this future? The answer is: None. There is no one, and neither the Israelites nor God knows any other god that had revealed himself but the God of Israel. Again, this says nothing about monotheism. It just talks about revelation, and wholeheartedly we recognize Isaiah's argument as valid.
}}

==Response to claim: 54 - the LDS idea of deification is unbiblical==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=Mormonism 101
|claim=
The authors' main purpose seems to be to show that the LDS idea of deification is unbiblical, unchristian and untrue. They seem to think that this doctrine is the main reason why the LDS reject the Psychological Trinity. They write:
<blockquote>
Why does the LDS Church reject the historic church's concept of the Trinity? Because not only does the Trinity remove any hope of a Mormon ever achieving godhood, but it also undermines Smith's first vision and subsequent teachings regarding a multiplicity of deities. If it can be demonstrated that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost/Spirit are God, and at the same time be shown that there exists only one God, it would definitely place the integrity of the first Mormon prophet on the line.
</blockquote>
}}
{{disinformation}}
{{:Question: What were the views of early Christians on the deification of man?}}

==Response to claim: 54 - the LDS Church rejects the historic church's concept of the Trinity==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=Mormonism 101
|claim=
The authors by their rejection of deification have-according to Vajda-proven the LDS teaching about the "Great Apostasy." Further, the above proves that either McKeever and Johnson are ignorant of the fully Christian doctrine of deification, or they ignore it wilfully to deceive their readers. Either way, they are dead wrong in the following assumption:
<blockquote>
Why does the LDS Church reject the historic church's concept of the Trinity? Because not only does the Trinity remove any hope of a Mormon ever achieving godhood, but it also undermines Smith's first vision and subsequent teachings regarding a multiplicity of deities. If it can be demonstrated that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost/Spirit are God, and at the same time be shown that there exists only one God, it would definitely place the integrity of the first Mormon prophet on the line.24
</blockquote>
}}
{{misinformation|Neither the hope of achieving godhood, nor the First Vision are undermined by the Latin or the Greek Trinity. The most important argument Athanasius provided against the Arian teaching that Jesus was not really God was, "If he was not really god, how could he MAKE us gods? How should he be able to make us, what he himself is not?"25 

It was the well-established doctrine of deification that made clear that Jesus was deus verus de deo vero (true god from true God), as the Nicene Creed states, and if not for deification, our Protestant brothers could well believe in Arianism now, because without that argument Athanasius may have lost the dispute. To claim that the LDS dislike the Latin and the Greek Trinity because of deification doctrine shows an absolute ignorance of the real facts of history and theology.
}}
*{{Detail_old|Nature of God/Polytheism}}

==Response to claim: 54-55 - Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he answered, No==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=Mormonism 101
|claim=
Next, the authors try to beat us over the head with a quote from the Book of Mormon:
<blockquote>
And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God? And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God. Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he answered, No.36
</blockquote>
}}
{{misinformation|Let's understand the situation first. Zeezrom is a lawyer opposed to the Gospel. He tries to take Amulek into cross-examination. Every word Amulek says he tries to use against him. Would Zeezrom have understood a complex answer? Or would he have made a fool of Amulek? Would he have trampeled upon sacred beliefs? Anybody who has read that passage in Alma knows for sure that this was what Zeezrom intended. In giving a simple answer, even if it is not exact, Alma does not throw his pearls before the swine. There is, says Amulek, just one God. There's one, who is-as Origen puts it-Autotheos, God out of Himself. The Son is God by the will and power of the Father, and so is the Holy Ghost. He is the one that Christ references as "the only true God"37 and "my God."38

But what about monotheism? It is not in the Bible, it is not in the Book of Mormon, nor in the early Church Fathers. Why should we believe it? Does that mean that the LDS are Polytheists? Certainly not, because we only worship the Father in the name of the Son, through the Holy Ghost.39

Are the LDS Henotheists? Again, certainly not. Nobody on this world or in this universe may choose whom to worship if he wants life eternal. To look up to any other being than Jesus Christ to save us, or to pray to anybody else but the Father in the name of the Son and through the Holy Ghost, is the road to eternal death. There is no way but Jesus, no God but the Father, who leads us, who guides us, who saves us through Christ. Thus Henotheism is a weak term that does not describe our faith sufficiently.

We are left to Monotheism as the concept that comes closest to our beliefs, though it is nevertheless inadequate a term, and with the Bible proclaim that YHVH is the God of gods, the King of kings, the Lord of lords.
}}

==Response to claim: 56 - "the Trinity was not an invention of the early church; rather, it was a definitive response designed to explain the biblical position of the church"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=Mormonism 101
|claim=
The authors claim that "the Trinity was not an invention of the early church; rather, it was a definitive response designed to explain the biblical position of the church" and that "[c]lear, definitive statements like the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds were apparently not necessary until orthodoxy was challenged in later years."
|authorsources=<br>
#J.N.D. Kelly, ''Early Christian Doctrines'', 89.
*Brown, ''Heresies'', 20.
}}
{{misinformation|The concept of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost as three separate entitites predates the Creeds during which the concept of the Trinity was formulated.
}}
{{:Question: Does the definition of the Trinity predate the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds?}}

==Response to claim: 57 - Mormons believe that the Trinity was "an invention of the apostate church," while Christianity believes it is "a doctrine that came from biblical origins"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=Mormonism 101
|claim=
The authors summarize this chapter as follows:
<blockquote>
*Mormons believe that the Trinity was "an invention of the apostate church," while Christianity believes it is "a doctrine that came from biblical origins."
*Mormons believe that the Trinity "cannot be true because it cannot be understood," while Chritianity believes it "is one of the things about God that is not able to be understood by a finite, created mind."
*Mormons believe that the Trinity "cannot be true because the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are merely one in purpose," while Christianity believes it "is true because there is one God by nature who is evident in three persons."
</blockquote>
}}
{{misinformation|
What do most lay Christians believe in when talking about the Trinity? Clearly, many believe in some kind of modalism. Father, Son and Holy Ghost are not true personages, but only masks, modes of God's being . The one God reveals Himself to us in three modes: Father, Son and Holy Ghost. These believers often profess: "The Father, Son and Ghost are one person."

Others rather firmly hold to the belief that the three are distinct persons, with three centers of willpower, each having a personal history. But they are, among those that believe in the Trinity, a minority. A Catholic religious teacher once explained:
*Father is not the Son;
*Father is not the Holy Ghost;
*Son is not the Holy Ghost.
*Father is God;
*Son is God;
*Holy Ghost is God.

That's the Trinity. It is mathematically wrong, and what makes it right is the mystery of faith. The informed reader will know that there are differences in beliefs about the Trinity. What Protestants and Catholics are proud to believe, namely the Psychological Trinity is an abomination for the second great old denomination of Christianity, namely Orthodoxy.
}}

{{endnotes sources}}




<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->