Trinity Doctrine

Volume Four—Chapter Four TRINITY DOCTRINE

#Introduction

To the definition of God, the fourth and fifth century councils added an embellishment of uncertain origin—the Trinity doctrine or the doctrine of trinitarianism. This included the claims Evangelicals have already made about the nature of God: God is a spirit (“immaterial,” “incorporeal,” and “invisible”) and is omnipresent. In addition, in some mysterious way not really understood by anyone, God is also the combination of three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. One divine personage is manifest in three personalities, three “centers of consciousness.” They are all three of one divine essence or substance (which substance is, by the way, “immaterial,” “incorporeal,” and “invisible”!). The terms historic Christianity uses for this oneness are consubstantial or homoousios. Both of these mean “of one substance, essence, or nature.” All three are coequal, that is, there is no subordination of one to the others.

#Trinity Doctrine

Evangelical view. Evangelicals see the following as biblical “evidences” for the Trinity doctrine, though it is apparent that they do not regard these evidences as conclusive:

1. The pronouns of Genesis 1:26 are plural—“let us make man in our image” (italics added).

2. The most common word for God in the Hebrew Bible is “Elohim” which is a plural form of “El.”

3. One passage that reflects the “monotheism” of the Old Testament is “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4).

4. In the King James New Testament, the name of God, Jehovah or Yahweh, is usually replaced by LORD, referring to Jesus Christ. Evangelicals, failing to understand that Jehovah is the Lord Jesus Christ, regard this as the apostolic writers’ way of reminding us that God (Jehovah) and Christ are one individual. Thus, they claim that the New Testament “adequately safeguards” against overly separating the Father and Jesus. Latter-day Saints, of course, understand that the apostles knew well that Jehovah and Jesus Christ are one and the same individual.

5. They cite a host of passages that emphasize the “oneness” of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (cf. Mark 12:32; John 10:30; 17:22; Ephesians 4:6; 1 Timothy 2:5; James 2:19; 1 John 5:7).

The Evangelicals’ concept that the Father is in the Son and vice verse is referred to as their doctrine of coinherence. Coinherence is defined as a spiritual fellowship involving divine (or human) persons. In their view it is vital that Jesus not be considered a separate person from God. If Jesus were believed to be separate from God the Father, the believer would be guilty of “polytheism,” the belief that the universe is governed by multiple gods who are equal in authority.

There exist at least three significant variations of the Trinity doctrine:

1. God and all of his components (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) is spirit with no body, parts, or passions. The three are homoousios or consubstantial—all of the same substance or essence. The Roman Catholics, Church of England, Presbyterians, and Methodists all espouse this doctrine.

2. Jesus Christ has a permanent resurrected body of flesh and bones. God the Father and the Holy Ghost are spirit. All three were “consubstantial” prior to the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

3. God is one spirit being who takes on the role of Father, Son, or Holy Ghost depending upon the circumstance.

Evangelicals believe that Mormons have “overly separated the Father and the Son.” They claim that “the early Christian church wrestled with how to preserve the unity of Father and Son without overly confusing or overly separating them” (HWD, 99).

Evangelicals regard Jesus as God’s way of revealing his very self to humanity. They feel Jesus is God the Father. They point to such scriptures as John 14:9-10, “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, Shew 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.” Also 2 Corinthians 5:19, “God was in Christ.” They feel that these scriptures “guard against tritheism.” Tritheism is the idea that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are entirely distinct or separate individuals.

If Jesus Christ is God the Father, then while Christ was on the earth, who was minding the shop in heaven? Blomberg explains:

Prior to the conception and birth of Jesus, then, the Godhead had never previously contained a person with a permanently human nature; from now on it would. We do not argue that Jesus was simultaneously incarnate [possessed a mortal body] and omnipresent. Instead, we claim that there was more to God than Jesus, lest [during his mortal earthly sojourn] there be no spiritually omnipresent Being left to rule the universe. Jesus had a fully divine nature, inseparable from the Father’s divine and essentially immaterial nature. But Jesus was also aware of a center of personal, divine consciousness outside himself, so that, for example, when he prayed, he was conscious of praying to the Father as distinct from merely praying to himself (Ibid., 99).

Whew! We can be grateful that the “soul [of the Lord] delighteth in plainness” (2 Nephi 31:3). Evangelicals themselves admit their struggles in trying to thoroughly understand the Trinity doctrine. Evangelicals believe God is a “mystery.” A mystery is a concept that cannot be completely understood by finite minds. Martin Luther “admitted that . . . since the article of the Holy Trinity is so far beyond our human mind and language, God must pardon us if we stammer and prattle about it as well as we can” (John T. Meuller, Christian Dogmatics, 155). Evangelicals and other orthodox Christians actually see positive virtue in God’s being a mystery. “Should we not expect an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God not to be fully comprehensible by mere mortals? Indeed, if we did not encounter deep mystery in God’s nature there would be every reason for suspicion concerning the Bible’s claims,” writes an evangelical apologist Bruce Milne. And he adds, “For all its difficulty the Trinity is simply [!] the price to be paid for having a God who is great enough to command our worship and service” (Know the Truth, 63). Another Evangelical author writes: “We need to respond to God as he has revealed himself—not invent simple ideas of God which, although much easier to believe, do not actually correspond to God. Augustine once wrote, ‘If you can understand it, it’s not God’” (Alister E. McGrath, “Making Sense of the Trinity,” Princeton Seminary Bulletin 12: 2). Blomberg writes, “Few of us claim that we must affirm every detail of the creeds or be able to explain at length the doctrine of the Trinity in order to be saved and inherit eternal life. If that were the case, few of us would ever qualify for salvation! . . . Not much depends on whether we can correctly articulate our beliefs in every detail, but everything depends on whether historic Christian beliefs are in fact true” (HWD, 119).

LDS view of “oneness.” We may divide trinitarianism (Trinity doctrine) into ontological and social trinitarianism. Either may be used to express the oneness of God. The word ontological means things as they actually physically exist. Evangelicals believe in ontological trinitarianism, meaning that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost actually exist in one being. When they speak of the oneness of the Godhead, they refer to all three beings in one divine essence or substance. We reject the concept of ontological trinitarianism. When we refer to the oneness of the Godhead, we refer to the Godhead’s social trinitarianism. This is the idea that they are three distinct and separate individuals, but they exist in one united Godhead. In this Godhead (in this “social” unit), the three are of one mind, heart, intent, purpose, power, and one in the attributes of perfection.

Robinson writes:

Latter-day Saints believe the biblical concept of “oneness” or of “being one” is revealed at John 17:21-23, Romans 12:5, 1 Corinthians 12:12-13, Galatians 3:28, etc., where the individual disciples can also be “one” in the Father and the Son, or “one” in Christ, or even “one” with each other in Christ—though still remaining separate beings with separate and individual bodies. Mormons accept John 14:11 as much as Evangelicals do: “Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father is me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.” But 14:11 should probably be read together with 17:21-22, which illustrates the nature of their oneness: “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one” (emphasis added). . . . Whatever it means that the Father is in Christ and Christ in the Father (John 14:11), it cannot be ontological oneness of being . . . since the disciples, who are indisputably separate and individual beings, can also be one in the Father and the Son in the same way that the Father and Son are one in each other (Matthew 17:22). And this is not a philosophical extrapolation from the text using nonbiblical terms formulated centuries later; it’s what the text actually says (HWD, 130).

Robinson expands on the two types of trinity or trinitarianism. I paraphrase: Let us first comment on the word Trinity. If by “the doctrine of the Trinity” you mean the New Testament teaching that there is a Father, a Son, and a Holy Ghost, all three of whom are fully divine, then Latter-day Saints believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. It is as simple as that. The Latter-day Saints’ first article of faith, written by Joseph Smith in 1842, states, “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” Baptisms in the Church are performed “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (see D&C 20:73). The prayer of blessing on the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is addressed to God the Eternal Father in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, to the end that those who partake may have his Spirit (the Holy Ghost) to be with them (see D&C 20:77-79). Latter-day Saints thoroughly agree with the biblical doctrine of the threefold nature of the Godhead and of the divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. We worship God the Father in the name of his son Jesus Christ. We acknowledge the influence of the Holy Ghost in all of the communication which occurs between God and man. The three separate individuals constitute the Godhead. And we are comfortable in referring to the Godhead as “one God,” meaning that they are united by the concept of social trinitarianism.1

However, if by “the doctrine of the Trinity” you mean the doctrine formulated by the councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon—that God is three coequal persons in one substance or essence—then Latter-day Saints do not believe it. This is ontological oneness. We do not believe in ontological oneness of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost because it is not biblical. There is nothing in the Bible to support this definition of the doctrine of the Trinity. Words essential to this understanding of the Trinity, such as coequal or consubstantial are not in the Bible. The word Trinity itself, for that matter, is also not in the Bible (Are Mormons Christians?, 22).

The term trinity (Latin, trinitas) was first used by Tertullian near the beginning of the third century AD. The Nicene, Constantine, and Chalcedonian Fathers, who formulated the Nicene Creed and its subsequent variations, tried to find scriptural terms to match the words they used to define God in their creed. They were unable to do so. Christian intellectuals of the fourth and fifth centuries felt that the biblical language was not adequately sophisticated and adequate for this purpose. So they attempted to supplement and improve it with their own best efforts. This required the introduction of several new words such as trinity, homoousios, consubstantial, ungenerated, indivisibly, inseparably, and unchangeably.

Again, I paraphrase from Robinson:

Knowledgeable Evangelicals claim that the creeds and teachings of the councils are historically accepted summaries of the biblical doctrines. They reason that the early creeds and councils are much closer in time and culture to the apostolic age than we are today. But this does not seem an accurate assessment. A true summary cannot introduce concepts or information not found in the material being summarized. And there is no passage of scripture or combination of scriptures for which the doctrine of an abstract, consubstantial, co-eternal unity in trinity, existing unknowably and incomprehensibly without body, parts, or passions and outside space and time can be called a fair “summary.” Jesus didn’t teach this concept of the Trinity, and the New Testament writers had no conception of it. There is a vast difference between a summary and an extrapolation. An extrapolation is the using of conjecture to create something new from something that is known. The un-summarized, un-extrapolated Bible is fine just as it is (HWD, 133).

The Christian scholars who participated in the fourth and fifth century AD councils placed themselves in the uncomfortable position of re-writing scripture. If a proposition is not already found in the Bible, by what authority, in the absence of apostles and prophets, can the creeds of the scholars be imposed on the church as the word of God? How can mere scholar-theologians expand upon, amend, and add to the doctrine of the apostles? Were they really “holy men of God” who “spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:21)?

The doctrine of the Godhead, which emerged from the fourth and fifth century councils, is virtually indistinguishable from that of Evangelicals today. It is a doctrine arrived at through deliberation, discussion, and compromise. One cannot escape this conclusion: it is a doctrine of men. It is an attempt by scholars to amalgamate the gods of Christianity and that of the philosophers. The latter god was much less human and a much more abstract figure. He was incapable of emotions and far removed from the daily concerns of humanity.

Joseph Smith’s view of the Godhead. To support the idea that the Father and the Son are the same individual, some Evangelicals have used John 10:30: “I and my Father are one.” They also use John 17:9-11: “I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.” This certainly need not imply a mystical union of substance or personality. Joseph Smith argues that to “be one” means to be of one mind, to be agreed:

Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God anyhow—three in one, and one in three! . . . “Father, I pray not for the world, but I pray for those that thou hast given me . . . that they may be one as we are.” I want to read the text to you myself—”I am agreed with the Father and the Father is agreed with me, and we are agreed as one.” The Greek shows that it should be agreed. “Father, I pray for them which thou hast given me out of the world . . . that they all may be agreed,” and all come to dwell in unity (TPJS, 372).

Joseph Smith taught that the Godhead was united by an “everlasting covenant [that] was made between [these] three personages before the organization of this earth” relevant to their administration to its inhabitants (TPJS, 190). Thus, a profound addition is added to the significance of this divine fellowship.

On June 16, 1844, in his last Sunday sermon before his martyrdom, Joseph Smith declared that “in all congregations” he had taught “the plurality of Gods” for fifteen years: “I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods” (TPJS, 370).

We see biblical references to separate individuals in the Godhead. We LDS are dependent upon and grateful for our modern-day scripture. There we find an entirely unambiguous explanation of the nature of the Godhead. It is unlikely that very many Israelites or Jews before Christ understood the true nature of the Godhead as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We do not expect to find the true nature of the Godhead or the corporeality of God described clearly in the Old Testament. Indeed, we freely acknowledge that the doctrine of three individuals in the Godhead is not taught clearly there. We also do not argue that it was once there and has been removed. We also admit that some passages in the Book of Mormon are ambiguous as to the exact nature of the Godhead (see “Trinity Doctrine and the Book of Mormon,” below). John Tvedtness taught, “There were times in history when the people did not have a clear view of the Godhead as taught in the Latter-day Saint Church today. To the Nephites, it seems clear that the Father and the Son are generally considered to be one God. . . . It is quite likely, then, that the ancient Israelites knew of but one God” (see John A.

Tvedtnes’s review of Approaching New Approaches to the Book of Mormon, in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, volume 6, number 1, 16).

Several New and Old Testament passages, however, do make it difficult to see the Father and the Son as one and the same:

1. In John 14:12 Christ is speaking: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.” Why would he go unto the Father if he were the Father? Would it not be foolish to assume that in Matthew 26:39, when Jesus prayed to the Father to ask if the “bitter cup” might be removed, that he is the Father? And would it not be just as foolish to assume the same in John 20:17 when Jesus says: “Jesus saith unto her, 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”?

2. Consider the account of Jesus’s baptism (Matthew 3:13-17). The scene is described clearly. Jesus is standing in the water alongside John the Baptist. The Father is speaking out of heaven. And the Holy Ghost, though invisible, is present as evidenced by the sign of the dove: “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:16-17). Blomberg explains this passage in a way, I’m afraid, that seems a bit contrived: “We do not believe that Jesus prayed to himself. He was fully aware of a separate spiritual presence with whom he communed, but he also realized that he was more intimately linked with that presence than any other human ever can be” (HWD, 120).

3. The three were also manifest In Acts 7:55-56 when Steven was being stoned: “But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.” Note here also the implication that the Father is an anthropomorphic being (a man)—the Son was standing on the right hand of God.

4. One interesting passage in Matthew 12:31-32 explains that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is unpardonable, but words spoken against the Son are forgivable: “Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.” This would be difficult to explain if the Holy Ghost and the Son were one and the same.2

5. The Father and the Son bear witness of one another in John 8:17-18, attesting to their separateness: “It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.” If the two were the same, this would violate the law of witnesses.

Note a similar scripture in the Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi 11:32: “And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.”

6. Hebrews 5:8-9 suggests that after his suffering and resurrection, Christ was perfect: “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.” And what was the form of that perfection? He had a body of flesh and bones. Following his resurrection, Jesus assured the apostles he was not merely a spirit: “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have” (Luke 24:39). The scripture affirms that he will never again lay down that tangible body (Romans 6:9).

7. Christ died on the cross and his spirit separated from his body. At his resurrection his spirit reunited with his body. Paul teaches in Romans 6:9 that Christ will not die again: “Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more.” Christ lives today with his body. Since Christ is in the express image of his Father, then his Father also has a body of flesh and bone.

8. In Acts 1:9-11 Christ’s disciples learn that Christ will return again in the same form and in the same manner as he ascended into heaven following his resurrection: “And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.” He ascended into heaven with a body of flesh and bone, and he will return clothed with the same body.

9. Hebrews 1:2-3 refers to the Father: “Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he [the Savior] had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.”

10. “For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself” (Philippians 3:20-21). Our “vile [mortal] body” will be changed at our resurrection. The resurrection will result in, as in the case of Jesus

Christ, an indissoluble union of spirit and body. There is purification as body blends with spirit—both becoming one—spiritual, inseparable, and perfect!

11. Exodus 33:9-11 describes Moses’s speaking to God “face to face” in the tabernacle.

12. Genesis 1:26-27: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” We are in the express image of the Father. Just as we have a tangible, flesh and blood body, so does he.

13. See also Matthew 17:5; Luke 3:22; John 5:19; 12:28; 14:28; 17:3.

Modern-day revelations confirm the teachings of the Bible on the nature of the godhead:

1. D&C 76:22-23: “And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives! For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father.”

2. JS-H 1:15-17: “After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction. But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being—just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me. It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!”

LDS view on “mystery.” It is easy to see a cruel irony in historic Christianity’s defining God in a mysterious and unfathomable creed, and then demanding loyalty to that creed by all its subjects. Graham and Seibach write:

Whereas the Jews had identified faithful adherents by their scrupulous observance of the law, Christians in the Greek culture identified their true members by their acceptance of increasingly precise creeds. When the Council of Nicaea introduced unscriptural Greek terminology as a test of faith (the Son was homoousios with the Father— of the same substance or essence), an important precedent was set. One could not be an orthodox Christian without accepting tenets of philosophical theology—even if one did not understand them. Until the Council of Nicaea, it was open to Christians simply to refuse to take sides on arcane [esoteric] questions of theology; after the council they had to accept philosophical definitions of faith (FRB, 216-17).

Critics of the Trinity doctrine have sometimes referred to it as an “absurdity.” Blomberg denies that the doctrine of the Trinity represents “an absurdity.” He writes, “Evangelicals regularly refer to the Trinity as a ‘mystery,’ but few of us believe it to be an absurdity. It is important to distinguish a concept that cannot be demonstrated to be completely understandable by finite minds from a concept that can be demonstrated to contain logical contradictions. . . . Should we not expect an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God not to be fully comprehensible by mere mortals?” Blomberg claims the doctrine of the trinity cannot be “demonstrated to contain logical contradictions” (HWD, 120).

Hamblin and Peterson respond to Blomberg’s claim:

We are more persuaded . . . by an article recently published in the quarterly journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers, which answers the question “Has Trinitarianism Been Shown to Be Coherent?” with a rather decisive “No” (see E. Feser, Faith and Philosophy 14/1: 87-97). We think that much if not all of what Blomberg claims for the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the Trinity (as in HWD, 98, 99, 117, 119-20, 122, 124-27) can be accounted for better and more coherently by a Latter-day Saint understanding of the Godhead. So, too, apparently, does Oxford’s Timothy Bartel. Upon rigorous analysis, he declared that the only logically tenable account of the Godhead is one in which “each member of the Trinity is absolutely distinct from the other two: the Trinity consists of three distinct individuals, each of whom is fully divine” (Bartel, “Plight of the Relative Trinitarian,” Religious Studies 24/2: 151). Furthermore, we think that a sensitive reading of both Latter-day Saint and mainstream Christian doctrine on the subject will discover surprisingly large areas of harmony. But when Blomberg writes that “It is hard to imagine anyone concocting the orthodox doctrine of a triune God, with all its complexities” (HWD, 126), we respond that the historical record is quite adequate to show how this happened and that it occurred on the basis of well-intentioned human attempts to make sense of certain scriptural statements in the light of particular philosophical and other presuppositions. Furthermore, his [Blomberg’s] attempt to distinguish three separate “center[s] of . . .

consciousness” in the Godhead, while denying that there are “three distinct personalities,” is unpersuasive (see Ibid., 99, 119). And it is difficult to see why, in contemplating the doctrine of the trinity, we should be more impressed with the alleged oneness of impersonal divine Being than with the “threeness” of the divine “centers of consciousness,” the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. For it is with these three that Christians interact. They pray to the Father, accept the atoning sacrifice of the Son, and receive the inspiration, guidance, and comfort of the Spirit. Divine Being itself [the God of historical Christianity] provides no guidance, offers no comfort, grants no inspiration. Divine Being did not teach in parables on the hills of Galilee, or heal the synagogue ruler’s daughter. It offered no atoning sacrifice and, as such, listens to no prayers (FRB, 184-95).

The Trinity doctrine is incoherent, irretrievably Hellenized, wrong, and neither demanded nor justified by the biblical text.

#Trinity Doctrine and the Book of Mormon

Evangelical view. Evangelicals find “trinitarian” language in the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 19:10; 2 Nephi 10:3; 11:7; 25:12; 31:21; Mosiah 3:5-8; 7:27; 13:34; Alma 11:29-44; Helaman 14:12; 3 Nephi 9:15, and Mormon 7:7). How are we LDS justified, therefore, in faulting Evangelicals for believing in the Trinity doctrine?

To cite just one example, consider Mosiah 3:5, 8: “For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases. . . . 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.”

LDS view. A source of confusion over Mosiah 3 is the Evangelicals’ misunderstanding of the identity of the Lord Jehovah. He is, of course, Jesus Christ himself.

Some members of the Church have found difficulty precisely defining the true nature of the Godhead from the Book of Mormon. Others, however, would argue that the Book of Mormon, in fact, does teach the separateness of the Father and the Son. The latter members point to such verses as Jacob 4:5: “Behold, they believed in Christ and worshiped the Father in his name, and also we worship the Father in his name. And for this intent we keep the law of Moses, it pointing our souls to him; and for this cause it is sanctified unto us for righteousness, even as it was accounted unto Abraham in the wilderness to be obedient unto the commands of God in offering up his son Isaac, which is a similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son.”

We do admit that modern revelation (The Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price) in our dispensation was required to remove all possible ambiguity from passages in the Book of Mormon. We also understand the misconceptions of those approaching the Book of Mormon without the benefit of modern revelation. For example the Book of Mormon reads at 2 Nephi 31:21: “And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end.” Notice that this text emphasizes the unity of the Godhead by using a singular verb for the plural subject: the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is one God. Also, in the Book of Mormon, the prophet Abinadi declares, “God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. 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—the Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—and they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth” (Mosiah 15:1-4).

Other passages in the Book of Mormon also refer to the separate members of the godhead being “one God” or “one Eternal God” (see Mosiah 15:5; Alma 11:44; Mormon 7:7). We, of course, maintain that this oneness is a social, and not an ontological, oneness. The three, indeed, function as one God. There may be additional reasons why the three are one God. If so, we are not yet given to understand these. Note their oneness is emphasized by the singular verb is—“which is one God, without end.” We believe the oneness in all of these passages refers to their social oneness, not their ontological oneness.

There may also be a historical reason why the Book of Mormon repeatedly emphasizes that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one God. This reason may have had its beginnings at the death of the righteous King Hezekiah of Judah. He was succeeded by his son, Manasseh who was twelve years old when he began to reign. He ruled Judah for fifty-five years and was certainly one of the most decadent and wicked leaders ever to reign over Judah. He built altars for the pagan God Baal, worshiped the “astral Deities” Mercury, Venus, and Mars, built altars to the pagan Gods in the temple of God, practiced the adulterous fertility rites, shed the innocent blood of many in Judah, and encouraged the practice of infant immolation. He even submitted his own son to the fire as a sacrifice to the gods. During his nightmarish reign, any righteous prophet of God had to go into hiding to avoid being murdered (2 Kings 21:1- 16). Manasseh was succeeded by his equally wicked son Amon who was assassinated after only a two-year reign.

Amon was succeeded by his son Josiah who became “good King Josiah.” He was one of the most righteous kings to lead Judah. He reigned some thirty one years and presided over a major religious reform. He restored the prophets to their proper place of leadership, tore down the pagan altars, rebuilt the temple, and returned worship therein to its proper form. During the reign of Josiah, an interesting thing happened. The high priest Hilkiah found, in the temple as it was being restored, a manuscript largely containing the writings of Moses called “the book of the law.” When this manuscript was read to King Josiah, he was overwhelmed and frightened to the point of tearing his clothes (2 Kings 22:11). The book contained stern warnings to Israel issued by the Lord, and its teachings became the very basis and theme of the religious reform advocated by Josiah. He called all the elders of Judah together and had the book read to them. He then made a personal covenant to uphold all the teachings and commandments contained in the book. All of Judah’s elders made the same covenant.

What was this book that so frightened the good King Josiah? It was the book whose name means “second law,” referring to the “second law of Moses.” It was the book of Deuteronomy. What year was it found? What year did the major religious reform of Josiah take place? About 621 BC. Was the Prophet Lehi a contemporary of Josiah? Was Lehi supportive of Josiah’s religious reforms? Of course. Not only would he have been supportive, but he would have been actively assisting the reform effort.

So what has all this to do with the godhead doctrine as contained in the Book of Mormon? Just this: The most prominent theme contained in Deuteronomy is that found in Deuteronomy 6:4, the so called “Shema”—Judah’s creed or confession of faith: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (emphasis added). This doctrine was particularly pertinent at the time of Josiah’s reform. His immediate predecessors had immersed Judah in the idolatrous worship of many gods. Under the influence of the newly discovered book of Deuteronomy, all in Judah were absolutely committed to the doctrine of “one [true] God” in contrast to many false gods. Lehi and his family would certainly have also been completely immersed in and committed to this doctrine, and they would have taught it as the gospel truth to their descendants. The literature of the Book of Mormon fits the setting from which it comes.

It is apparent that, in practice, most Evangelicals do not distinguish between social oneness and ontological oneness. They view all references of oneness of the Godhead through the lens of the Trinity doctrine.

#How Important Is It to Understand the True Nature of God?

Evangelical view. Owen and Mosser agree with us that understanding the nature of God is vastly important:

Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals are agreed that one’s view of God is of paramount importance. The issue of God’s identity and nature is fundamental to every other issue. When we explore who God is and what sort of being he is, we are exploring the basic issue of the universe. One must understand God in order to understand his or her role in the world and how to live properly in it. But, as Blomberg and Robinson conclude on this topic, the doctrine of God is where the divide between Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints is greatest (HWD, 109). And it is from our differences concerning God that most (if not all) of our other theological differences arise (FRB, 25-26).

LDS view. If Evangelicals are wrong about the nature of God and the Godhead, does it matter? Is the doctrine of the godhead simply an isolated, interesting concept? What are its implications? The true doctrine of the Godhead teaches that in important ways we do not fundamentally differ from the God of this universe. We are of his genus or species. He is literally our father. We are literally his children. We are members of his family. We possess the potential to become all that he is. We have the innate capacity to become like him. And he yearns for us to do so. He loves us beyond our ability to comprehend. The central purpose of his life is that we become like him and live with him forever (Moses 1:39). It is his most essential passion. Nothing could ever be more important for us to know than these basic facts about him. The very purpose of this earth and mortal experience is to enable and facilitate the process of becoming like him. This concept is at the epicenter of our religious philosophy. Yet the entire world, in their religious worship, has lost sight of this principle! Even those who call themselves “Christians” have no idea whatever about this most essential aspect of religion.

#Finite or Infinite Theism

Evangelical view. Words used to describe God in the Bible and in modern-day scripture include omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and unchangeable. The Evangelical view and the LDS view of the definitions of some of these words differ significantly.

Evangelicals interpret them all literally, absolutely, and unqualifiedly. Their interpretations lie at the heart of God’s being called infinite. Blomberg claims that finite beings can never, by themselves, become infinite (HWD, 105). Evangelicals find the idea of a finite God repugnant and without virtue. They accuse us LDS of having a “theologically unacceptable form of finite theism” (Owen and Mosser in FRB, 81).

Evangelical view of “omnipresent.” For example, when they say God is omnipresent, they believe God is literally and personally everywhere present in the universe all at once. They believe he is present in all places at all times. Owen and Mosser write:

According to Evangelical theology God is personally present everywhere, something that is just not possible in the Latter-day Saint view. According to the LDS view God is not personally in the room with us as we write this review. He could be aware of what we do and he could influence what we do, but he himself is not in the room with us. In the Evangelical view God is personally present as we type these words (FRB, page 30, note 59).

Evangelicals insist that God’s having influence everywhere is not the same as having personal presence everywhere.

Evangelical view of “omnipotent.” Another example is their view of omnipotence. They do acknowledge that the concept of “absolute power” can lead to absurdities. Some things are impossible to do (make a circle that is square, make a rock so big he can’t lift it, etc.). They also aver that God cannot do anything that is evil because of his own desire to maintain his characteristic consistency we call goodness. But they insist God can do anything that is possible to do. No one or no thing can thwart the fulfillment of his will.

Owen and Mosser reiterate:

There need not be any compromise of the term’s [omnipotent] meaning. We would argue that God contains within himself all metaphysical, ontological, and logical necessities and is therefore totally self-dependent and limitless. . . . In our view no outside or independent constraints limit what God can and cannot do. . . . Nothing can be done that God cannot do (FRB, page 31, note 62).

Evangelical view of “omniscient.” Similarly, if knowledge can possibly be known, God knows it and has always known it (omniscience). God has knowledge of all things past, present, and future. His knowledge of the future is absolute. Hence, his foreknowledge constitutes divine cause or pre-destination.

Evangelical view of “unchangeable.” They would contend that unchangeable means just what it says. God has always been, and will always be, just as he is now. He has not, does not, and will not ever change. Augustine argued that God is a substance that “cannot undergo any change at all” (The Trinity, trans. Stephen McKenna, 177), and most of today’s Evangelicals agree.

LDS view. We also believe God is holy, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-wise, perfectly benevolent, immortal, and perfectly loving. Robinson points out that the LDS also believe God is “omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable” (HWD, 77). The difference between Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals hinges not on the names of the attributes ascribed to God, but on how they are best defined.

LDS view of “omnipresent.” We believe God is omnipresent by virtue of his influence and light “which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space.”3 This is the light “which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things” (D&C 88:12-13).

LDS view of “omnipotent.” We also believe God can do anything that can be done. He is therefore omnipotent. One restriction, however, is important. He cannot do anything to coerce any intelligence against its will. The principle of agency is sacrosanct. God will not, and indeed cannot, force any intelligence against his or her will.4

Most Evangelicals believe God is absolutely omnipotent and created his universe absolutely, out of nothing, or ex nihilo. This raises a problem. It is the so-called “problem of evil.” It may be summarized as follows. God may be regarded as responsible for everything in the universe since he created it. Since evil exists, then God must have created it. Thus arises the essential question: Is the existence of evil compatible with the existence of an omnipotent God with the ability and desire to eliminate evil? Might this mean that God may not, in fact exist? This question has long been used by atheists to justify their lack of belief. After all, shouldn’t a God who created everything ex nihilo have been able to preclude all evil from becoming part of our universe?

The LDS solution to this problem is simple. God did not create the universe ex nihilo. Rather, he created it ex materia, or out of materials that have always existed. These basic elements include unorganized matter, which has always existed, and intelligences, or the essences of men, which have also always existed and are coexistent with God (D&C 93:29). Evil is any influence that adversely affects an individual in his sojourn toward exaltation. It is any influence that leads man away from the path leading to eternal life. The major source of evil in our universe is the “natural self” of each and every intelligence in God’s universe. It provides each intelligence with some

disinclination to obey the Lord’s commands. While Satan delights in any evil influence and does what he can to aid that influence, he is not the creator of evil. The essence of man has always existed and has always possessed a natural self. Thus, God did not create evil. It has always existed in the “materials” he used to create the universe. God’s inability to interfere with the existence or agency of an intelligence obviously allows evil to persist.

LDS view of “omniscient.” We also believe God knows all things, past, present and future. He is therefore omniscient. We believe, however, he does not exist outside of time, and he knows things that will happen in the future because of his perfect knowledge of the hearts and minds of all the intelligences. He knows what will happen because he knows what is likely to happen. He does not and cannot interfere with the agency of any intelligence. His knowledge of what will happen does not make it happen. Everything is seen, but agency remains. Divine foreknowledge is not predestination. What God foresees is not divinely caused. But it is, in some sense, known.

Elder James E. Talmage wrote of God’s foreknowledge:

Our heavenly Father has a full knowledge of the nature and disposition of each of his children, a knowledge gained by long observation and experience in the past eternity of our primeval childhood; a knowledge compared with which that gained by earthly parents through mortal experience with their children is infinitesimally small. By reason of that surpassing knowledge, God reads the future of child and children, of men individually and of men collectively as communities and nations. He knows what each will do under given conditions and sees the end from the beginning. His foreknowledge is based on intelligence and reason. He foresees the future as a state which naturally and surely will be; not as one which must be because he has arbitrarily willed that it shall be (Jesus the Christ, 29).

A note of warning is appropriate. We must be cautious not to be too glib about the completeness of our understanding of the attributes of God. Both the Father and the Son have divine foreknowledge concerning all mortals regarding their responsiveness to the gospel message. Jesus said, “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine” (John 10:14, italics added). On another occasion he said, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me” (John 10:27, italics added). In this dispensation he declared, “And ye are called to bring to pass the gathering of mine elect; for mine elect hear my voice and harden not their hearts” (D&C 29:7). It is no wonder that the Lord could say to Jeremiah, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee and I ordained thee a prophet to the nations” (Jeremiah 1:5). Paul said of God, “He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4). We say God has a perfect knowledge of his sheep because he knows intimately and perfectly our minds and hearts. Therefore he has foreknowledge of our eternal fate. With our primitive mortal intellects, we cannot possibly understand, in full, this divine foreknowledge. In some way, likely not completely understood by us, the past, present, and future are before God simultaneously. In a revelation to Moses, the Lord said, “And all things are present with me, for I know them all” (Moses 1:6).

Perhaps God also does not live in and is not confined by the dimension of time as we do and are. Since “all things are present with” God, perhaps he does not merely predict based on past performances and present characteristics. In ways we cannot understand, he may actually see the future because all things are, at once, present before him. In a revelation to Joseph Smith, the Lord described himself as “The same which knoweth all things, for all things are present before mine eyes” (D&C 38:2).

LDS view of “unchangeable.” We do not believe God the Father and his Son are unchangeable. We believe the Father once lived a mortal life and progressed spiritually to become a Creator God. He continues now to progress and will always do so. The Son was the first born in the premortal life. “He received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness” (D&C 93:13). He entered mortality and took upon himself a mortal body. He grew spiritually in mortality, especially during the day of his atoning sacrifice. By this experience, he became the Savior of the Father’s universe. He also will continue to progress eternally.

Blomberg, quite properly, explains the “immutability” of God as referring to his “faithfulness in keeping his word” (HWD, 102). Blomberg also notes: “Evangelicals . . . are increasingly expressing dissatisfaction with their classical formulations of doctrines such as the immutability, impassability, and simplicity of God.” Blomberg continues by noting that some in the Evangelical camp even speak of God’s “choice to remain ignorant of certain future events so as to allow his creatures genuine freedom” (Ibid., 109). Other Evangelicals, however, wonder if those who think of God in such terms can meaningfully be described as “evangelical.”

Graham and Siebach respond to the belief of most Evangelicals that God is unchangeable: “How can a being that ‘cannot undergo any change at all’ interact with us? How can he empathize, be angry, take pity on us, rejoice at our triumphs, and commiserate with us in our failures? Would not praying to an unchangeable being be like praying to an idol of stone or wood?” (FRB, 216). We prefer to think of God as being warm, concerned, and responsive to our needs. He loves us and genuinely yearns to live with us forever (Moses 1:39).

We are loathe to think we are forced to refer to our inconceivably glorious Creator of the cosmos as being “finite.” Yet, by the Evangelical definition, we are guilty. We don’t believe that the categories of infinite and finite are theologically meaningful or useful.

#Is Jesus Subordinate to the Father?

Evangelical view. Evangelicals insist that the Father and the Son are “eternally co-equal.” If the Son is in any way subordinate to the Father, he is not fully God. Thus, he would not be the kind of infinite deity necessary to atone for our sins and to pay the infinite price required for our purification. Blomberg writes: “If Christ was ever less than fully God (even when he assumed a human nature), then he is by definition not the kind of infinite deity necessary to atone for our sins and to pay the infinite price required for our purification” (HWD, 118). Owen and Mosser also argue the Son must be the same Deity as the Father in order for the atonement to have validity: “Unless the Son is the true God, as opposed to some lesser or independent Deity, then redemption is dependent on a being who is unable to effect true reconciliation with the Deity” (FRB, 49).

Evangelicals do admit to a number of scriptural passages that suggest Christ was subordinate to his Father even for all eternity (John 14:28; Philemon 2:6-8; 1 Corinthians 15:28). Their explanation? They claim “historic Christianity has always insisted on balancing Christ’s “functional subordination” with his “ontological equality.” In other words, in the very essence of Christ’s being he is eternally equal with God, even if in playing certain roles he voluntarily submits himself to his Father.

A subordinate deity runs afoul of the Platonic definition of god as “absolute” (a definition of God not found in the scriptures). In Greek philosophy a subordinate deity was an impossibility—an oxymoron.

LDS view. The Evangelicals’ conclusion about subordination is strange indeed! Often third parties are brought in to help reconcile differences between two parties. Sometimes third parties are essential to such reconciliation. In this case a subordinate God (Jesus) served as the Mediator between humankind and the Father. This was the Father’s idea (John 5:22). Having said that, we also insist that Jesus is not just the Son of God. He is God the Son. He is fully divine. His atonement was and is infinite.

In answer to Evangelicals’ accusations that we are “subordinationists,” Robinson writes: “It is true that Mormons are thoroughly subordinationist in their theology of the Godhead, as were many of the early Church Fathers, but this does not constitute a rejection of the New Testament any more than it did for the Fathers. Rather, it is one logical and coherent way of understanding the New Testament data. In the LDS view, the Son is subordinate to the Father, and Holy Spirit is subordinate to both the Father and the Son” (HWD, 130).

Many passages in the New Testament reflect a subordinationist point of view like that of the Latter-day Saints (e.g. Mark 13:32; 14:36; John 5:30; 6:38; and Hebrews 5:8). John 14:28 flatly states, “My father is greater than I.” What biblical passages can the “orthodox” cite that state in equally plain and clear language the opposing view as formulated at Nicaea and Chalcedon, that the Father and the son are “eternally coequal?” There are none. Scriptures affirming that the Father and the Son are one will not help here since “oneness” does not necessarily mean “eternal coequality.” The evangelical view can be arrived at only by first accepting the Greek concept of deity and then working backward to reinterpret the scriptures. This type of revising of the clear meaning of scripture, to accommodate the theologian, risks the censure recorded in Mark 7:9, “And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.”

In fact the Son and the Holy Ghost are dependent on their oneness with the Father for their divinity. “If the Father did not exist, neither the Son nor the Holy Ghost would be God, for their divinity comes through their relationship with the Father” (HWD, 131). For example, John 5:26-27 clearly states that the power and authority of the Son are given to him by the Father. Evangelicals apparently feel this type of subordination would make Christ less than fully divine and therefore unable to atone and redeem. Yet, it was clearly the mortal Jesus Christ, in his subordinate state (or “lower position” or “state of humiliation,”) before his ascension and glorification, who pled with the Father for relief (Matthew 26:39), suffered for us, bled for us, atoned for us, redeemed us, and died for us. “If the Son was subordinate to the Father while in the flesh, and if he was in the flesh while performing the atonement, then is it wise to insist that a subordinate Christ could not have power to save?” (Ibid.).

Referring to the early Christian fathers’ belief in subordinationism (see M. Simonetti, Encyclopedia of the Early Church, 797), Robinson objects to our being labeled unorthodox today, since no Evangelical today would call those pre-Nicene fathers unorthodox. Robinson, doubtless with a twinkle in his eye, writes: “If pre- Nicene mainstream Christians, like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, or Eusebius of Caesarea, can be thoroughly unorthodox in their view of the Godhead (by post-Nicene standards) without being declared heretical, then is it not unfair to demonize the LDS for the same point of view?” (HWD, 131).

It must be emphasized that Latter-day Saints believe in the full divinity of Jesus Christ. Though subordinate to his Father, Jesus has been fully God by the will of his Father from the beginning. The feelings of Latter-day Saints about Jesus Christ are ably summarized in 2 Nephi 25:26: “And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.” According to Joseph Smith, “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the apostles and prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that he died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it” (TPJS, 121).

Further, the Book of Mormon teaches if Christ were not fully God, he could not have brought about the infinite atonement by which humans are saved (Alma 34:8-10; 2 Nephi 9:7). For Latter-day Saints, Jesus is not just the Son of God, he is God the Son. We insist on his full divinity and infinite atonement as much as Evangelicals do. It is misrepresentation to insist, using “orthodox” logic, that if Mormons believe in the subordinate nature of the Son, then they can’t believe in the full divinity of the Son. Mormons, in fact, believe in both.

For further discussion of God the Father and the Godhead, see volume 2, chapter 4, The Father and the Doctrine of the Godhead.

2 See a discussion of the unpardonable sin in volume 3, chapter 18, Three Most Abominable Sins.

3 See volume 1, chapter 15, The Concept of Light.

4 For a more in depth discussion of God’ power, see volume 1, chapter 14, The Power of God.

5 For further discussion of the conflict between our natural and spiritual selves, see volume 1, chapter 5, Our “Natural Self” and “Spiritual Self” and chapter 6, The Gospel and the Two Natures of Man.