GATEWAY SEMINARY OF THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION SOCIAL, BUT NOT TRINITARIAN: THE FATHER, SON, AND HOLY GHOST IN MORMON THEOLOGY A RESEARCH PAPER PRESENTED TO CARL MOSSER IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIAL STUDIES IN THEOLOGY: MORMONISM, L 3999 11 BY MATTHEW D. VISK 12/16/17 Introduction Parley Pratt, a member of the LDS Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, once said regarding the Trinity: Oh, the mysteries, the absurdities, the contentions, the quarrels, the bloodshed, the infidelity, the senseless and conflicting theories, which have grown and multiplied among sectaries on this subject! Among these theories, we will notice one, which is, perhaps, more extensively received by different sects than any other. The language runs thus—"There is one only living and true God, without body, parts, or passions; consisting of three persons—the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." It is painful to the human mind to be compelled to admit, that such wonderful inconsistencies of language or ideas, have ever found place in any human creed. Yet, so it is.1 The history of Mormon thought on the Trinity is reflected in Pratt’s above quotation. However, with the rise of Social Trinitarianism (ST), Mormons have become much more charitable to the doctrine of the Trinity–going so far as to defend Social Trinitarianism by using Joseph Smith’s teachings and revelations to supplement where they see the unity of their Godhead,2 expressed in the language of Christian scholars like Cornelius Plantinga and Jürgen Moltmann. David Paulsen and Brett McDonald, practicing Latter-day Saints, say in an article defending ST: [W]e have defended ST from its theological critics and argued that Joseph Smith’s understanding of the Trinity throws needed light on several of the contemporary issues surrounding ST. We maintain that incorporating these insights into the ongoing trinitarian discussion can help combat what many commentators see as “the current situation in which we find ourselves, namely, the virtually total irrelevance of the doctrine of the Trinity.” Surely this is a battle worth fighting.3 1 Parley Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology (Liverpool: F.D. Richards, 1855), 27. 2 The Oxford English Dictionary defines “godhead” as the “divine nature”. However, this paper will adopt the helpful colloquial use of “godhead” to refer to the three members of the Trinity. “Godhead,” in Oxford Dictionaries (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), online at https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/godhead. 3 David Paulsen and Brett McDonald, “Joseph Smith and the Trinity: An Analysis and Defense of the Social Model of the Godhead,” Faith and Philosophy 25/1 (2008): 66. 1 2 This paper will seek to assess the claim that the Mormon view qualifies as a form of Social Trinitarianism. It will not discuss whether ST should be an accepted model of monotheism within the parameters of Christian orthodoxy.4 It will argue that traditional Mormon theology is not a form of Trinitarianism, social or otherwise. Orthodox Distinctives The orthodox view of the Trinity has some key assumptions that are essential to trinitarianism itself. The Athanasian Creed says: We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. It is both equally dangerous to confound the persons (à la Modalism) and divide the essence (à la Arianism) and as such, great care must be taken to not overstep these boundaries by stressing either too far. There is no division in the glory or majesty of each person(age),5 but all three have always coexisted in harmony, never having a time when they were not as they are now. The names, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, reveal something of their ontology as well as their economy. They proclaim that the Father is exactly that, a father; and as such, fathers the Son. He does not simply become a father or become “Father” because he fathers, but is Father and therefore fathers. Similarly, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and is begotten because he is Son. However, there was never a time which he was not begotten, but has eternally existed in this relationship with the Father. Likewise, the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father 4 For further discussion on whether ST as an acceptable orthodox model, see Carl Mosser, “Fully Social Trinitarianism,” Philosophical and Theological Essays on the Trinity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 131-150. 5 There is a significant difference in the orthodox use of person and the LDS use of personage, which will accordingly be discussed in detail below. For now, it will suffice to say that there is a difference in the usage in both traditions. 3 (and in the Western tradition, from the Son as well- fililoque). According to St. Augustine, he is the mutual bond of love that exists between the Father and Son.6 There has never been a time, in Christian tradition, where any member of the Godhead did not exist as they are now; the relationship that exists between the members of the Trinity is eternal. This ontology of the Godhead is different than that of the operations of God. For the Father is “Creator,” as much as the Son is “Redeemer,” and the Spirit is “Sustainer,” but these are contingent names of God that describe his doing, not his being.7 Therefore in speaking of God’s ontology, it is important to first grasp that God’s ontology derives itself from who God is to himself–for this is his eternal nature and mode of being. He cannot not be Father, for his existence as such is necessary. However, he could not be Creator if he chose never to create–for this is contingent. The Nicene-Constantinople Creed (Nicene Creed) used the phrase “of one essence”, or in the Greek homoousios (όµουσιούς), to explain the unity of the Godhead. The Son and the Holy Spirit are of the same essence as the Father. This is not to suggest that God exists as only one person who reveals himself in the different modes of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit–for that would be modalism. Instead, there exists a unity in essence of the three persons of the Godhead that is different than the essence of any of God’s creation. Therefore, it is not three different Gods that Christians worship, but one God who exists as three co-equal and distinct persons of the same essence. These persons are one metaphysically infinite being, who exists in a universe created by them. Also, there is no ontological subordination that exists between the members, nor is there one member who has existed as God longer than the others, but all members are 6 7 Augustine, “De Fide et Symbolo,” NPNF, 329-31. David Steinmetz, “Inclusive Language and the Trinity,” in Taking the Long View: Christian Theology in Historical Perspective (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 35. 4 co-equal and co-eternal.8 In fact, ST avoids Arianism and “Tritheist” charges by not “grad[ing] the divine essence” in each person.9 Paul Owen describes the inseparableness of the Trinity and their unity in essence by suggesting, Orthodox Christians understand those Others to be the Son and the Holy Spirit, who may be distinguished from the Father insofar as God may be distinguished from the Wisdom of God and the Word of God, yet not so far as to postulate that God could ever be Godwithout-Wisdom, or God-without-Word.10 Although there are distinctions between each member of the Trinity, orthodox Christians, nonetheless, have seen the unity of these members to be intrinsically tied to them being homoousious. In addition to homoousios, is the language of perichoresis (περιχώρησις). This language first appeared in the Christological writings of Gregory of Nazianzus.11 However, it was later developed to relate to the interpenetration of the persons of the Trinity as well. The Trinity then is the three persons of the Godhead relating to one another in an intimate fashion where they coexist in an eternal relationship of interpenetration/intersection with each other, making them one. This is similar to the way Christ’s divinity and humanity are so united that they cannot be separated or seen as two parts of him. It is, therefore, both the permeative quality of the relationship of the members of the Trinity, as well as their homoousios characteristic where Christians see the unity of the Godhead. These basic premises of the Trinity are held by all trinitarians, and provide the foundations that ST uses to further explore the nature of person, 8 Stephen Davis, “The Mormon Trinity and Other Trinities,” Element 2/1 (2006): 3. 9 Thomas R. Thompson and Cornelius Plantinga, “Trinity and Kenosis,” in Exploring Kenotic Christology: The Self-Emptying of God, C. Stephen Evans, ed., (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 182. 10 Paul Owen, “The Doctrine of the Trinity in LDS and ‘Catholic’ Contexts,” Element 1/1 (2005): 3 11 G. L Prestige, and F. L Cross, God in Patristic Thought (London: S.P.C.K, 1964), 291. 5 plurality, and unity. The Social Model Among Social Trinitarians there is little agreement on the extent of the social nature of the Godhead, which proves problematic in summarizing the model. Stephen T. Davis suggests that the community language ascribed to God cannot be stressed too far, but instead argues for a way of seeing the social model of the Trinity “in some ways like a community or society.”12 Cornelius Plantinga describes the same relationship as, the Holy Trinity is a divine, transcendent society or community of three fully personal and fully divine entities: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit or Paraclete…The Trinity is thus a zestful, wondrous community of divine light, love, joy, mutuality and verve.13 These two models of ST demonstrate different starting points regarding the nature of the community of the Godhead. In both cases, though, the nature of unity proposed is in a shared divine primacy of the Father’s person14 and a joint “redemptive purpose, revelation, and work.”15 An important element of the ST model is that some variations allow for each person of the Godhead to possess a distinct will and center of consciousness. This is not necessarily reflective of the economic Trinity, but rather a reflection of a social understanding of the nature of the ontological Trinity, and God’s relationship with himself. The nature of persons in the social model allows for such individuality. ST ascribes an anthropomorphic understanding of personhood to the trinitarian members in the strongest sense. Thompson and Plantinga define 12 Davis, “Mormon Trinity,” 3. 13 Cornelius Plantinga, “Social Trinity and Tritheism,” in Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement: Philosophical and Theological Essays (Notre Dame, Ind: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), 27 (emphasis mine). 14 Davis, “Mormon Trinity,” 3. 15 Plantinga, “Social Trinity,” 27. 6 personhood as requiring: (1) an ontology that individuates the Father, Son, and Spirit, (2) selfconsciousness, and (3) a relationship dimension.16 With these requirements, ST will attribute three discreet centers of consciousness to each trinitarian person as a necessary component, that is “dependent upon intersubjectivity.” 17 Although Plantinga and Davis disagree on whether or not ST is broad enough to say God is a community or simply like a community, both find the unity of the Godhead primarily in perichoresis. In order to preserve monotheism as a common ground, ST will see that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have always existed in a perichorotic relationship with one another, sharing a generic essence of goodness amongst themselves. Essentially, the persons of the Trinity share a universal nature (divinity) in the Social Model which stands against saying that each person share an individual nature (God),18 which provides a model that gives three persons who are all one kind of being. Plantinga and Thompson suggest that perichoresis “highlights the unity of purpose, fellowship, communion, hospitality, transparency, self-deference, or just simply the love among Father, Son, and Spirit.”19 There are many other things that could be said regarding this subject, but would be outside the scope of this paper. For our purposes, we can turn to considering the traditional Mormon view of the Godhead. Traditional Mormon View Considering only the LDS Standard Works, one might see striking resemblance to Christian trinitarianism. The Articles of Faith define belief in the Godhead as: “We believe in 16 Thompson and Plantinga, “Trinity and Kenosis,” 177-81. 17 Thompson and Plantinga, “Trinity and Kenosis,” 179 (emphasis theirs). 18 Davis, “Mormon Trinity,” 4. 7 God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.”20 Brigham Young, the successor of Smith, said on this topic, “Is he one? Yes. Is his trinity one? Yes.”21 The Book of Mormon also asserts, in 2 Nephi 30:21b, “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. Amen.” And once more, in 3 Nephi 28:10, “and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one.” Upon first glance, Mormonism seems to have a similar view of the Trinity as orthodox Christians. However, a key feature of Mormonism is the belief in continuous revelation. A survey of important LDS figures illustrates some of the changes traditional Mormon thought has undergone in a short amount of time. An appropriate place to begin the discussion on the traditional Mormon view of the Godhead involves looking at one of Joseph Smith’s final statements on it in a sermon preached in Nauvoo Illinois, on June 16, 1844, in which he said, I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders 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. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it?22 Smith’s use of the word “personage” is very important in understanding the Mormon Godhead. The three personages all share the attributes of deity, but, as Evangelical Robert Bowman explains, each has “attain[ed] these attributes individually and at different times 19 Thompson and Plantinga, “Trinity and Kenosis,” 183-84 (emphasis mine). 20 Articles of Faith 1. 21 Brigham Young, “The One-Man Power—Unity—Free Agency—Priesthood and Government, Etc.,” Journal of Discourses 14 (Liverpool, London: Joseph F. Smith, 1877), 92. 22 B.H. Roberts, ed., History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 6 (Salt Lake City, UT.: Deseret Book Co., 1978), 474. 8 (with Heavenly Father, by all accounts, attaining deity before the other two), and other beings have also attained these divine attributes with the promise that more will do so in the future.”23 Each personage is a physically separate and distinct individual, who entered into an eternal covenant together to constitute the council of the heavens.24 Each personage possesses their own center of consciousness and will, having also entered into the community of the Trinity at different times (since each has exalted to their current position). The Godhead is then a composite unity of three. It is also possible, according to Smith’s understanding of personage, for other lower intelligences (namely humans) to exalt into such a personage like God the Father (D&C 132:19-20), opening the door to the theoretical possibility of the Godhead consisting of four or more members. A distinction of Mormonism is the metaphysical finitude of each personage, who exist in a universe that is not ultimately created ex nihilo by them. Therefore, God is limited in his omnipotence by the things not created by him (i.e. laws, matter, universe, other exalted gods, the Head God [i.e. there is one]).25 Orson Pratt, an early member of the LDS Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, seems to think differently than previous noted Mormons on the Trinity, saying, “Now it so happens that the Scriptures do not teach anything so absurd, so irreconcilable and so contrary to our senses. 23 Robert M. Bowman, “Social Trinitarianism and Mormon Theology” (paper presented at the Evangelical Theological Society annual meeting, San Antonio, TX, 16 November 2016), 21. 24 However, the Mormon scriptures detail this event with only the Father, Son and Lucifer present in the council (along with advanced intelligences). Lucifer is depicted as offering suggestions to the Father as if he is a member of the Godhead, after which he falls. Was Satan a member of the Godhead at some point in time? If he fell, can any of the other personages fall too? Did the Holy Ghost take his place? D&C 130:22; Moses 4:1-3; D&C 121:36-43; D&C 76:25–29. See Carl Mosser, “Exaltation and Gods Who Can Fall: Some Problems for Mormon Teodicies,” Element 3/1&2 (Spring and Fall 2007): 45-67. 25 D&C 93:29, 33; See Joseph Fielding Smith, et al., ed., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book Company, 1961), 372. 9 This is a man-made doctrine, the creation of uninspired men.”26 In a similar fashion, Parley Pratt, the brother of Orson, said, Jesus Christ and his Father are two persons, in the same sense as John and Peter are two persons. Each of them has an organized, individual tabernacle, embodied in material form, and composed of material substance, in the likeness of man, and possessing every organ, limb, and physical part that man possesses. There is no more mystery connected with their oneness, than there is in the oneness of Enoch and Elijah, or of Paul and Silas. Their oneness consists of a oneness of spirit, intelligence, attributes, knowledge, or power. The language used by both Orson and Pratt show a rather disdain towards the doctrine of the Trinity as laid out in the traditional orthodox creeds. John Widtsoe seemed more open to using the word Trinity to describe the Mormon Godhead by saying, “The Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost constitute the Godhead, or Trinity of Gods, guiding the destinies of men on earth.”27 However, Widtsoe displays that he has a different definition of Trinity in mind when he says, “The Bible, if read fully and intelligently, teaches that the Holy Trinity is composed of individual Gods.”28 In James Talmage’s Articles of Faith, he explains the nature of the Godhead in LDS thought as, Three personages composing the great presiding council of the universe have revealed themselves to man: (1) God the Eternal Father; (2) His Son, Jesus Christ; and (3) the Holy Ghost. That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is very plainly proved by the accepted records of the divine dealings with man… The Godhead is a type of unity in the attributes, powers, and purposes of its members… By some this has been construed to mean that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one in substance and in person, that the names in reality represent the same individual under different aspects. The one-ness of the Godhead, to which the scriptures so abundantly testify, implies no mystical union of substance, nor any unnatural and 26 Orson Pratt, “Salvation Tangible—Personality of God—Character of God—Pre-Existence of Man— Jesus Our Elder Brother—Transformation of the Earth—Creation and Organization—Its Final Destiny, the Home of the Saints—Revelations By Joseph Smith in Harmony With Scripture,” Journal of Discourses 18 (Liverpool, London: Joseph F. Smith, 1877): 288. 27 John Widstoe, A Rational Theology, as Taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints (Salt Lake City, UT: The Deseret News, 1932), 64. 28 John Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1960), 58. 10 therefore impossible blending of personality; Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are as distinct in their persons and individualities as are any three personages in the flesh. Yet their unity of purpose and operation is such as to make their edicts one, and their will the of God.29 The language of unity used here by Mormons is very similar to that used by Plantinga in the social model. However similar it sounds, Mormons are simply not, by any definition, Nicene Trinitarians. This comes as no surprise considering LDS views on the Christian church’s apostasy. Mormons reject the homoousios statement found in the Nicene Creed, because the original writers could not come to an agreement on a definitive definition of homoousios,30 and instead see the ecumenical creeds as manmade, and not authoritative. Instead of homoousis being the glue of the Trinity, the “oneness” of the Mormon Godhead comes from the unity of their purpose, power, and will. This language is strikingly similar to Plantinga’s ST understanding of unity in the person’s “joint redemptive purpose, revelation, and work.”31 As a result of the similar etymology found in Plantinga, Mormons have suggested that their belief in the unity of the Godhead is expressed in ST. Yet, this simply cannot be true if we consider the fundamentally different worldviews of each. Comparing the Two Models–Is Mormonism a Form of Social Trinitarianism? After considering the distinctive elements of both theories, it is apparent that the two have fundamentally different worldviews. However, are these differences enough to exclude Mormonism from being trinitarian? To determine an answer, I will examine three key issues: (1) The eternality of the Godhead (2) The perichorotic nature of the persons (3) The metaphysical (in)finitude of the Godhead 29 James Talmage, The Articles of Faith (Salt Lake City, UT: The Deseret News, 1919), 39-41 (emphasis mine). 30 Paulsen and McDonald, “Joseph Smith and the Trinity,” 50-1. 31 Plantinga, “Social Trinity and Tritheism,” 27. 11 (1) The Eternality of the Godhead In orthodox Trinitarianism, each person on the Godhead is coeternal (see D&C 76:95; 88:107; 93:29,33). The Father has always existed as the Father, eternally begetting the Son, with the Spirit eternally proceeding from him. The primary assumption of any form of trinitarianism is that all of the members have always existed as they are now. There has never been a time when any member of the Godhead was not God, nor became God, nor entered into a relationship with the other members. On the subject of the eternality of the Godhead, Gregory of Nyssa said, God commands us by the prophet not to regard as God any new god, nor to worship any alien god (Ps 81:9; Ex 34:13). Now it is clear that what is not from eternity is called "new" and, on the contrary, that which is not new is called "eternal." Thus whoever does not believe that the Only-begotten God is from the Father eternally does not deny that he is new, for that which is not eternal is necessarily new. Now anything which is new is not God, as Scripture says, "There shall be no new god among you." Therefore whoever says that the Son "once was not" denies his deity. Again, when God says, "You shall not worship an alien god" (Ex 20:3), he forbids us to worship an alien god; and an "alien god" is so called in contradistinction to our own God. Who, then, is our own God? Clearly, the true God. And who is the alien god? Necessarily, one who is alien from the nature of the true God. So if our own God is the true God, and if, as the heretics say, the only-begotten God is not of the nature of the true God, then he is an alien god, and not our God.... Then what will they do, who say that he is a creature? Do they worship that same creature as God, or not? If they do not worship him, they follow the Jews in denying the worship of Christ: and if they do worship him, they are idolaters, for they worship one alien to the true God. Now, it is equally ungodly not to worship the Son, and to worship an alien god. Therefore it is necessary to call him the true Son of the true Father, so that we may both worship him, and avoid being condemned as worshippers of an alien god.32 All matter, beings, and laws, have a definitive beginning point. God does not. This contrasts with a key tenent of Mormonism, namely, that all intelligences can be exalted and become 32 Gregory of Nyssa, "On the Faith, to Simplicius," NPNF 2/5 (trans. David S. Yeago), 337. Cited in David S. Yeago, “The New Testament and Nicene Dogma: A Contribution to the Recovery of Theological Exegesis,” Pro Ecclesia 3/2 (2002): 158-159. 12 gods. In fact, all three members of the Mormon Godhead are exalted intelligences.33 In the King Follett Discourse, Joseph Smith taught: I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. … It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God and to know...that he was once a man like us… Such language simply does not exist in orthodox Christianity. God does not “become” God, but instead has always been God, and will always be God. This precludes any other sentient being in Christian theology to ever join the Trinity. In Mormonism, this is hypothetically possible. Although Mormons typically reject homoousios language, there is a very real sense in which the Mormon Godhead is homoousios–because all sentient beings are homoousios if they are understood to be eternal intelligences that have no beginning.34 This shared essence makes it then possible for all intelligences to be exalted in the same way that God the Father was exalted; which then opens the opportunity for entrance into the Trinity as a similar being. In fact, it is not as much a potential as a reality considering both Jesus and the Holy Spirit have done it already. Orthodox trinitarianism precludes any possibility of the Godhead being formed (or joined), because the members have always existed as Trinity. Mormon exaltation suggests that each member of the Godhead entered into the Trinity, and it is a composite unity of beings. ST presupposes that God has eternally existed as (or like) a community, that never began, and that none can join.35 This cannot be said of the Mormon Godhead. 33 Smith, Teachings of Joseph Smith, 345-346. 34 D&C 93:29,33 35 There does exist the possibility of experiencing the community of the Trinity through union with Christ in redemption, but this is different than entering as a similar being into the eternal relationship that no other member ever entered into. 13 (2) The Periochorotic Nature of the Persons Orthodox Trinitarians reject the type of physicalist ontology that Mormonism holds to. The majority of orthodox thinkers have held to the belief that God is spirit and not a material being. In Mormonism, this is not a possibility, according to Doctrine and Covenants 131:7-8, which affirms that, “[t]here is no such things as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.” To say that God is spirit would, in Mormon thought, suggest that he is simply of purer matter than what we know right now. The difference of an ontology of physicality and one of spirituality has implications on the nature of unity, further separating Mormonism from any type of Trinitarianism. A view of three Gods who are simply united in purpose, power, and will but not in perichoresis is not orthodox trinitarianism. According to D&C 130:22, both God the Father and Son are embodied persons who have bodies of “flesh and bones and tangible as man’s.” The limitations of a human body eliminate the possibly of any permeation or overlapping happening between the two embodied members of the Mormon Godhead. Similar to the that way human beings cannot relate to each other perichoretically, the bodies of the Father and Son cannot either. In fact, the very idea of overlapping and inter-dwelling between two embodied beings is disqualified in the same verse. The Holy Ghost is defined as being a “personage of Spirit” because “were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.”36 If all three members of the Mormon Godhead were to be embodied, then the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us. The Holy Ghost must then be spirit so that he can indwell in bodies. The metaphysical boundaries of materiality prevent the possibility of the Father and Son perichoretically relating to each other. 36 D&C 132:22c 14 The Godhead of Orthodox Trinitarianism has no such boundaries. Accordingly, the three persons are not embodied ontologically. The Son had to take upon himself a body in the incarnation for the economic reasons of redemption. The Son ontologically existed as the Logos asarkos long before he existed as the Logos ensarkos. Therefore, even if the objection is raised that the exalted Christ has retained his body and is fixated in Heaven with the limitations of a body (regardless of its glorified state), it may be pointed out that both traditions have an understanding of how one embodied person can be penetrated by another, boundary-less persons. The problem that the LDS tradition has is two limited, embodied beings.37 (3) The Metaphysical (in)Finitude of the Godhead Trinitarianism is fundamentally monotheistic at its core. The basic premise is contingent on a qualitative nature of God rather than a purely qualitative nature. This stems from a type of theism that differs from that of Mormonism. God is metaphysically infinite, existing as the only necessary force in a universe created ex nihilo by him. There were no other sentient beings that exists alongside the three persons of the Trinity when they created everything. He is the supreme being and the fount of all life, power, and glory. The forward thrust of monotheism then is the relationship of the one God with everything else that exists. If he is not the ultimate necessity and supreme sovereignty, then it is not monotheism. Stephen E. Parrish summarizes monotheism as, God as the Greatest Possible Being…that being who cannot be surpassed, even by himself... It means, among other things, that God is personal and immaterial, the sovereign creator and sustainer of all other being, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, immutable and eternal, all good and the source of moral value, necessary and unique, infinite and transcendent.38 This form of theism stands in stark contrast with that found in Mormonism. 37 38 See further Davis, “LDS Trinity,” 9-10. Stephen E. Parrish, “A Tale of Two Theisms: The Philosophical Usefulness of the Classical Christian and Mormon Concepts of God,” in The New Mormon Challenge (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002), 196. 15 The Godhead of Mormonism is metaphysically finite, for the persons exist in a universe that is not ultimately created by them. The God of Mormonism does not create ex nihilo, but instead organizes and forms pre-existing matter.39 Not only does he exist in universe not created by him, but one where there are other Gods who exist alongside him, and potentially even above him. In the King Follett discourse, Joseph Smith said regarding other Gods in the universe, This is the true meaning of the words. ROSHITH [BARA ELOHIM] signifies [the Head] to bring forth the Elohim. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the learned man of God. No learned man can tell you any more than what I have told you. Thus, the Head God brought forth the Head Gods in the grand, head council.40 This language seems to suggest that there is a Head God above God the Father, who appointed/exalted/organized the Father to his current spot. Although this is not an official doctrine, nor is the King Follett discourse a sacred work in the LDS church, it still offers insight into Smith’s developed doctrine of the Godhead, and raises the question of the identity of this Head God. In addition, other LDS scholars claim that their scriptures should be “interpreted in light of later revelations and statements by Joseph Smith and other common LDS doctrines.”41 Whether the Head God is a God above God the Father, or God the Father is the Head God who appoints other Gods (D&C 121:32), the conclusion is still the same: there are other Gods in the Mormon universe that hint at a form of Monarchotheism.42 Regardless of how it is parsed, Monarchotheism is not monotheism, and anything not monotheistic is not Trinitarian. 39 Abraham 4:1, 14, 15, 16. 40 Stan Larson, “The King Follett Discourse: A Newly Amalgamated Text,” BYU Studies 18/2 (1978): 9. 41 Parrish, “Two Theisms,” 200. 42 This is defined as “the theory that there is more than one God, but one God is clearly preeminent among the gods; in effect, he is the monarch or ruler of all the gods.” See Parrish and Mosser, “Two Theisms,” 195. 16 The God of Mormonism is also contingent, for theoretically he is able to not exist as God. There was a time when God was not God, and that he depended on either another God to help exalt him. This God also is dependent on matter for his existence because he is an embodied being, and therefore cannot be self-existent. As such, he is limited in the scope of his transcendence, and seems to exist inside the confines of the universe.43 Parrish also notes that the LDS thinkers cannot view God as the source of all good in the same way classic Christian theism can, for he himself needed to progress and be exalted, following the objective ethical laws of goodness.44 These two different understandings of God signify a much larger gap between Trinitarian and Mormon theism then can be reconciled by any agreements on the social nature that exists between the persons of the Godhead. Conclusion Upon first glance, Mormonism and ST seem to have a similar understanding of the Godhead. Both traditions see a unity in the purpose, power, will, and love of the persons of the Godhead, which may tempt us to see Mormonism as affirming an understanding of the Trinity that is considered by some, a variation of Trinitarianism. However, this similarity does not carry enough veracity to affirm Mormonism as a form of Trinitarianism when compared to the basic premises and principals that each tradition is founded on. After assessing both traditions and their basic understandings of the persons, the nature of their unity and relationship, and the different theisms that both traditions posit, Mormonism cannot be called a form of Trinitarianism. Orthodox trinitarianism presupposes a framework of the nature of God that excludes Mormonism long before claims of unity should be assessed. 43 D&C 88:12 44 Parish, “Two Theisms,” 203. 17 Bibliography Augustine. Philip Schaff, ed. Translated by S.D.F. Salmond. “Treatise on Faith and the Creed (De Fide et Symbolo)” in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church 3. Buffalo: The Christian Literature Company, 1887. Bowman, Robert M. “Social Trinitarianism and Mormon Theology.” Paper presented at the Evangelical Theological Society Annual Convention. San Antonio, TX, 16 November 2016. Davis, Stephen. “The Mormon Trinity and Other Trinities.” Element 2/1 (2006): 1-14. Larson, Stan. “The King Follett Discourse: A Newly Amalgamated Text.” BYU Studies 18/2 (1978): 9. Madsen, Truman G. “Are Christians Mormon?” BYU Studies 15/1 (1975): 73-94. Mosser, Carl. “Fully Social Trinitarianism.” Pages 131-150 in Philosophical and Theological Essays on the Trinity. Edited by Thomas McCall & Michael C. Rea. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Mosser, Carl. “Exaltation and Gods Who Can Fall: Some Problems for Mormon Teodicies.” Element 3/1&2 (2007): 45-67. Owen, Paul. “The Doctrine of the Trinity in LDS and ‘Catholic’ Contexts.” Element 1/1 (2005): 1-26. Parrish, Stephen E. with Carl Mosser. “A Tale of Two Theisms: The Philosophical Usefulness of the Classical Christian and Mormon Concepts of God.” Pages 193-218 in The New Mormon Challenge. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002. Paulsen, David L. “Are Christians Mormon? Reassessing Joseph Smith's Theology in His Bicentennial.” BYU Studies, 45/1 (2007): 35-128. Paulsen, David and Brett McDonald. “Joseph Smith and the Trinity: An Analysis and Defense of the Social Model of the Godhead.” Faith and Philosophy 25/1 (2008): 4774. Peterson, Daniel. “Mormonism and the Trinity.” Element 3/1 (2007): 1-43. Plantinga, Cornelius. “Social Trinity and Tritheism.” Pages 21-47 in Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement: Philosophical and Theological Essays. Edited by Ronald J. Feenstra and Cornelius Plantinga. Notre Dame, Ind: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989. 18 19 Pratt, Orson. “Salvation Tangible—Personality of God—Character of God—Pre-Existence of Man—Jesus Our Elder Brother—Transformation of the Earth—Creation and Organization—Its Final Destiny, the Home of the Saints—Revelations By Joseph Smith in Harmony With Scripture” Pages 286-297 in Journal of Discourses 18. Liverpool, London: Joseph F. Smith, 1877. Pratt, Parley. Key to the Science of Theology. Liverpool, England: F.D. Richards, 1855. Prestige, G. L, and F. L Cross. God in Patristic Thought. London: S.P.C.K, 1964. Roberts, B.H., ed. “Discourse of the Prophet—The Godhead—The Mob Uprising—Arrest of President Smith, et al. over the "Expositor" Affair—Trial before Esquire Wells.” Pages 473-491 in vol. 6 of History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Salt Lake City, UT.: Deseret Book Co., 1978. Rowe, C. Kavin. “Biblical Pressure and Trinitarian Hermeneutics.” Pro Ecclesia 11/ 3 (2002): 295-312. Sanders, Fred. The Deep Things of God: How the Trinity Changes Everything. Wheaton, IL.: Crossway, 2017. Smith, Joseph. “A Sabbath address in Nauvoo, IL, 11 June 1843.” In Encyclopedia of Joseph Smith’s Teachings. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2000. ––––. “The Great Plan of Salvation.” Pages 206-16 in Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 2007. Smith, Joseph Fielding, ed. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book Company, 1961. Steinmetz, David. “Inclusive Language and the Trinity.” Pages 27-36 in Taking the Long View: Christian Theology in Historical Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Talmage, James. The Articles of Faith. Salt Lake City, UT: The Deseret News, 1919. Thompson, Thomas R. and Cornelius Plantinga Jr. “Trinity and Kenosis” in Exploring Kenotic Christology: The Self-Emptying of God. Edited by C. Stephen Evans. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Widstoe, John. A Rational Theology, as Taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints. Salt Lake City, UT: The Deseret News, 1932. ––––. Evidences and Reconciliations. Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1960. 20 Yeago, David S. “The New Testament and Nicene Dogma: A Contribution to the Recovery of Theological Exegesis.” Pro Ecclesia 3/2 (2002): 259-312. Young, Brigham. “The One-Man Power—Unity—Free Agency—Priesthood and Government, Etc.” Pages 91-8 in vol. 14, Journal of Discourses. Liverpool, England: Joseph F. Smith, 1877.