Does BoM teach Trinity?

[Sparko]

I know Mormons deny the Orthodox Christian idea of the Trinity, that Jesus is God, The Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, yet there is only ONE GOD revealed in three persons.

The Mormons believe that the Father is God, and that Jesus is his physical Son, and that the Holy Spirit is a spirit being (another son of the Father, but with no body, right?) - So the Son is physically a different being than the Father. Also they believe the Father used to be just a man on another planet, and became a God who then created Earth, and that men on earth can become Gods eventually themselves. This means that there are many Gods presumably stretching back forever (The Father was created if he was a man, so he had a God who created him, who used to be a man so he had a God, and so on...)


But I have noticed that there are several verses in the BoM that seem to go against what the LDS officially "believes" about God.

If there are some Mormons out there that would like to explain these verses to me, I would appreciate it.


===

===========
Mosiah 15
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 are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

==========
Alma 11
27 And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God.
28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?

29 And he answered, No.
...
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;
44 ... of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God...

=========
Also in
D&C 20
28 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.


============

[Trout]

I know Mormons deny the Orthodox Christian idea of the Trinity, that Jesus is God, The Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, yet there is only ONE GOD revealed in three persons.

The Mormons believe that the Father is God, and that Jesus is his physical Son, and that the Holy Spirit is a spirit being (another son of the Father, but with no body, right?) - So the Son is physically a different being than the Father. Also they believe the Father used to be just a man on another planet, and became a God who then created Earth, and that men on earth can become Gods eventually themselves. This means that there are many Gods presumably stretching back forever (The Father was created if he was a man, so he had a God who created him, who used to be a man so he had a God, and so on...)


But I have noticed that there are several verses in the BoM that seem to go against what the LDS officially "believes" about God.

If there are some Mormons out there that would like to explain these verses to me, I would appreciate it.


===

===========
Mosiah 15
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 are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

==========
Alma 11
27 And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God.
28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?

29 And he answered, No.
...
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;
44 ... of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God...

=========
Also in
D&C 20
28 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.


============
Welcome to Tweb John Sparks.

The Latter Day concept of God seems to differ from the BOM's concept of God.

It doesn't seem to be Trinitarian however, evidenced by Jesus claiming to be the Father.

Trout

[Sparko]

Welcome to Tweb John Sparks.

The Latter Day concept of God seems to differ from the BOM's concept of God.

It doesn't seem to be Trinitarian however, evidenced by Jesus claiming to be the Father.

Trout
Thanks for the welcome.

Yeah I kinda got that the LDS and BoM do not agree on their concepts of God. It seems the BoM is teaching a type of modalism.

I think Joseph Smith wrote the BoM way before he decided on his actual doctrine regarding God as taught by the LDS Church.

What I am trying to figure out is how do Mormons reconcile these two versions of God? or actually three if you count the bible. They have the trinity as shown in the bible, then monotheistic modalism as shown in BoM and the plurality of Gods as taught by the LDS church.

[John Powell]

JOHN SPARKS:
I know Mormons deny the Orthodox Christian idea of the Trinity, that Jesus is God, The Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, yet there is only ONE GOD revealed in three persons.

The Mormons believe that the Father is God, and that Jesus is his physical Son, and that the Holy Spirit is a spirit being (another son of the Father, but with no body, right?) - So the Son is physically a different being than the Father.


POWELL:
I'm no longer a believer, but I'll let my former believer self answer your questions.

JOHN MORMON:
You're pretty much on track. Whether the Holy Ghost is a spirit child of the Father is unknown. Maybe. Maybe not. Jesus is not only the physical Son of the Father, but also the spiritual Son.

JOHN SPARKS:
Also they believe the Father used to be just a man on another planet, and became a God who then created Earth, and that men on earth can become Gods eventually themselves. This means that there are many Gods presumably stretching back forever (The Father was created if he was a man, so he had a God who created him, who used to be a man so he had a God, and so on...)


JOHN MORMON:
How far this goes back is unknown. Maybe God's father was the first of all Gods and maybe it goes back beyond that.


JOHN SPARKS:
But I have noticed that there are several verses in the BoM that seem to go against what the LDS officially "believes" about God.

If there are some Mormons out there that would like to explain these verses to me, I would appreciate it.

Mosiah 15
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 are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.



JOHN MORMON:
I'll tell you how I understand these verses.

In v. 1, "God himself" is Jehovah = Jesus.

In v. 2, "will of the Father" refers to Elohim = Heavenly Father, but "being the Father and the Son" refers to Jehovah.

In v. 3, "The Father" refers to Jehovah as the "Father / Creator" of things like the Earth and Salvation.

In v. 4, "they are one God" refers to Jehovah and Elohim as being a pair of divine beings united in a presidency of Gods, a single Godhead.

JOHN SPARKS:
Alma 11
27 And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God.

28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?

29 And he answered, No.
...

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;

44 ... of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God...



JOHN MORMON:
Again, my understanding:

In v. 27, "a true and living God" refers to the 3-member Godhead or specifically to the supreme member, Elohim.

In v. 28, "more than one God" refers to more than one Godhead or more than one supreme being over the Earth than Elohim. There isn't any other for this Earth.

In v. 38 and 39, Jehovah is the "Eternal Father of heaven and earth" because He, under the direction of Elohim, is the creator of those things.

In v. 44, the one Eternal God means one Godhead, one presidency of Gods.


JOHN SPARKS:
Also in

D&C 20
28 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.



JOHN MORMON:
Again, the "one God" here means one presidency of three Gods.

You see, John Sparks, God apparently has wanted to EMPHASIZE that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are so united in purpose that they each are authorized to speak for the others. Unfortunately, by emphasizing how united they are, people have been misled to believe they share the same substance and they are the same being in some complicated way despite John the Apostle clarifying that the Son and the Father are one in purpose. That's one of the reasons the Father went with the Son to visit Joseph Smith so Joseph could see that they are two distinct beings.

POWELL (My current atheist self):
You might be on the right track, John Sparks. Maybe Joseph Smith originally believed in trinitarianism, but gradually changed his mind and found a way to re-interprete the Book of Mormon he had already created and the similar Biblical passages to support his new theology. That meant he had to change the First Vision, however, to include the Father and the Son instead of just the Savior.

John Powell

[Sparko]

POWELL:
I'm no longer a believer, but I'll let my former believer self answer your questions.


JOHN MORMON:
How far this goes back is unknown. Maybe God's father was the first of all Gods and maybe it goes back beyond that.

one God" refers to more than one Godhead or more than one supreme being over the Earth than Elohim. There isn't any other for this Earth.

John Powell
Thanks John Powell.

I see how convoluted it can all get having to redifine words and phrases like "no other" and "one" and all that. :-)

But how do the mormons redefine "infinite" and "eternal?"

Scripture Verse:</STRONG>

D&C 20
28 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.


Seems like infinite and eternal mean that God had no beginning as well as no end. So since they believe that God did have a beginning (as a man) then how can he be infinite and eternal? Eternal means without beginning or end. Something that has a beginning can never be infinite (only potentially infinite) and never eternal, but at best "everlasting"

Anyway, thanks.

[Sparko]

maybe I jumped the gun on "eternal" - Eternal can refer to something that has a begining but lasts forever, as in our "eternal" souls.

[John Powell]

JOHN SPARKS:
But how do the mormons redefine "infinite" and "eternal?"

D&C 20
28 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.


JOHN SPARKS:
Seems like infinite and eternal mean that God had no beginning as well as no end. So since they believe that God did have a beginning (as a man) then how can he be infinite and eternal? Eternal means without beginning or end. Something that has a beginning can never be infinite (only potentially infinite) and never eternal, but at best "everlasting"

Anyway, thanks.


JOHN MORMON:

D&C 19:10-12
10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—

11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.

12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.


JOHN MORMON:
One of God's names is "Endless." Another is "Eternal." Presumably, "Infinite" and "Everlasting" are others. So, to speak of God being "endless, eternal, infinite, and everlasting" would not NECESSARILY imply that God had no beginning or end, but maybe it would.

Most Mormons believe God is some kind of Omnibeing, but I think those are just superlative terms applied to God that are exaggerations. God, I imagine, doesn't want us to focus on the fact that He's not philosophically the ideal God, but to focus on the fact that He is sufficiently close to the ideal to warrant having exaltation producing faith in Him. Most people aren't philosophers, so the superlatives are closer to representing the truth to people than to encourage someone having defeatist notions like "God can't cause a 90 year old woman to have a child" or "God can't raise the dead."

John Powell

[AugustineH354]

I personally believe that Mormonism does teach a form of the doctrine known as the Trinity—and importantly, so do some professors from BYU (David Paulsen, Stephen Robinson, and Daniel Peterson), and a respected LDS philosopher/theologian (Blake Ostler).

I highly suggest that the following online articles/essays be read:

http://www.nd.edu/~rpotter/ostler_element1-1.html

http://www.christianity.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID307086|CHID559376|CIID1671522,00.html

Aug

[freelight]

Hello all,

I would say the producer of the BoM held to the traditional concept of the Trinity at least intellectually as was the prominent protestant belief at the time. Therefore he(JS) and most of the witnesses could all agree that the Father, Son and HG were one God. Even though the BoM may express a monotheistic modalism of sorts or binatarianism(2 gods - Father/Son dualism)...the general trinitarianism of the protestantism of the times is a given....even if not so conceptually articulated (as the author infused much of the text with NT terminologies, christian theology, etc.).

JS's theology and concept of God of course evolved in time and ultimately left traditional trinitarianism, binatarianism, modalism for the current polytheism and corporeal nature of God(as Man).

Since these blends of theological thought are part of the evolution of mormonism...they can flexibly be coordinated with convenient versatility. I find both the lds and orthodox view of the Trinity subject to inspection.


paul

[Leroy]

Hello all,

I find both the lds and orthodox view of the Trinity subject to inspection.


paul

Could you elaborate on this, specifically the orthodox view?

[freelight]

Could you elaborate on this, specifically the orthodox view?

Hi Leroy,

What I meant was that each view is subject to inspection...meaning each have their own speculations - their own conceptual premise. The orthodox view requires its own unique metaphysics to comprehend how 3 'persons' can be one God. 3 in 1, 1 in 3 model. Such requires an aspect of mystery and faith in such a concept of the Godhead...besides a metaphysical cohesiveness(essence, substance).
The lds view relieves some of the metaphysical tensions of the orthodox view by maintaining distinct seperate individualities within the Godhead who are more or less corporeal beings..having bodies.
While I can entertain an orthodox view of the trinity as a conceptual model of the Godhead....I tend to more Arian in my christology....which does not necessarily discount the Trinity but only makes distinction between the Father and the Son relative to divinity status.
I see the trinity as a later christian development albiet already existing in earlier religious traditions as well. For me it serves primarily as a 'conceptual model' - I hold primarily to Gods Unity of Being...that Being being ONE. The One and Only Deity Being.


paul

[Leroy]

While I can entertain an orthodox view of the trinity as a conceptual model of the Godhead....I tend to more Arian in my christology....which does not necessarily discount the Trinity but only makes distinction between the Father and the Son relative to divinity status.


Interesting comments, could you elabrate just a tad on the "distinction between"

I see the trinity as a later christian development albiet already existing in earlier religious traditions as well.


Later as in the Paul's writings or later then that?

For me it serves primarily as a 'conceptual model' - I hold primarily to Gods Unity of Being...that Being being ONE. The One and Only Deity Being.


Conceptual as in "one in purpose", but two separate and distinct personages?

[freelight]

Interesting comments, could you elabrate just a tad on the "distinction between"

Even within the trinitarian view...the Father and Son are 'distinct' from one another by virute of being/designation. The Father is the ancestor of the Son. The Son is generated by the Father. There is a processional of being by virtue of genesis....and the sequence of time.


Later as in the Paul's writings or later then that?

I see it being mostly later as far as formalizing such as 'creed'/orthodoxy. Pauls letters which are 1st cent. of course fit into a trinitarian view as well as the gospels - but interpolations were also put into the NT to substantiate the trinity-view. You dont have the fervent drive to establish the Trinity-doctrine until after the 1st century....when the church felt the need to defend itself against heretics....particularly Arius among others. Jesus eventually is elevated as 'God'...equal in essence and being with the Father - as the creeds depict.(Nicene, anthanasian).





Conceptual as in "one in purpose", but two separate and distinct personages?Conceptual as ontological, purposeful and metaphysical. The Trinity maintains all personages as 'distinct'....yet one in primeval Essence, one Deity. Instead of using the word 'seperate' I will hold to 'distinct'....which concurs with both Arian and orthodox views of the Godhead.



paul

[Leroy]

Even within the trinitarian view...the Father and Son are 'distinct' from one another by virute of being/designation. The Father is the ancestor of the Son. The Son is generated by the Father. There is a processional of being by virtue of genesis....and the sequence of time.




I think you’re relying to heavily on anthropomorphic terms in your understanding of the relationship in the Trinity. Is there any scripture base for your statement “The Son is generated by the Father”? Jesus was in the beginning with the Father, and although it’s true that it says in John 1 that Jesus was begotten, it further says in Acts 13 and Heb 5 that “today I have begotten thee”. This can’t mean that the Son was literally generated “this day” more like the Word became flesh, Col 1:15 “Who is the image of the invisible God.”

[freelight]

I think you’re relying to heavily on anthropomorphic terms in your understanding of the relationship in the Trinity. Is there any scripture base for your statement “The Son is generated by the Father”? Jesus was in the beginning with the Father, and although it’s true that it says in John 1 that Jesus was begotten, it further says in Acts 13 and Heb 5 that “today I have begotten thee”. This can’t mean that the Son was literally generated “this day” more like the Word became flesh, Col 1:15 “Who is the image of the invisible God.”

The Son is by virtue of designation the offspring of God. The Logos was in the beginning with God. I did read that that in an earlier manuscript.....at the baptism of Jesus...God said, 'Today I have begotten thee' - hence some believe that Jesus was adopted then as the Son of God. But to address your use of the phrase - Jesus was literally begotten as the Son of Man/Son of God. The Logos was indeed manifested in the the body of Jesus and he shone as the light of the world. Ones preconceived notions of the Trinity of course may modify the details, of course.


paul