Problems with Mormons and the Trinity

Posted on March 7, 2008
Filed Under Philosophy |

Over at Millennial Star last week. I had two posts (here and here) on how the mainstream doctrine of the Trinity and Mormon theology are compatible. They were more oriented towards general readers but I think make the case reasonably well. I want to now throw some wrenches into the gears and argue against this position.

9D40D023-3A69-4A1B-A2C7-692903362694.jpgThe first problem is that “persons” in the discussion of the Trinity isn’t the same as our common venacular of person. The best explanation of this is in the old Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Persons. The term usually translated as “persons” is hypostasis and sometimes is discussed relative to masks worn by actors. However one has to be careful since those Trinitarians distinguishing between person as in human person from persons in the Trinity go too far and descend into modalism. (i.e. the idea that the members of the Trinity are just different modes)

Now all this gets complex fast and the best argument against the doctrine of the Trinity is simply that it’s way too complex and attempts to reconcile a bunch of passages presuming a very literalistic reading of those passages in a way that might be misplaced. However complexity really isn’t an argument against a position.

Getting back to the issue of persons it seems to me that the main point of difference hinges on the fact persons are complete and created in a way the persons (hypostasis) are not. However since Mormons reject creation ex nihilo this doesn’t apply. Duns Scotus’ reading of the Trinity sees the underlying essence underlying the persons as Nothing. That is they are essentially ungrounded whereas people being created are grounded by God’s creation. Now once you reject creation ex nihilo then all people are likewise ungrounded in the way Duns Scotus sees the Trinity being unground. Certainly many Mormon thinkers who are influenced by Heidegger, Levinas, Ricoeur, and others would tend to make that move. (And something like that move would be necessary to make sense of our theology of divinization in my view)

Now I’m not saying that a critic of Mormonism can’t make the move of bringing up the distinction between person and persons. I think one has to be careful since arguably Mormonism makes all people more like God ontologically than mainstream Christianity does. Now that is a big difference between us. But it points out our main difference being our rejection of creation ex nihilo rather than the doctrine of the Trinity proper.

The second problem is the statement of the Trinity that “the Father is neither begotten nor proceeds.” Typically in Trinitarian formulas the Son is begotten from the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Father. Yet the Father is neither begotten nor proceeds. Yet, most Mormons would say that the Father has a Father and thus is begotten like the Son is begotten.

This seems a bigger problem although those who reject a “robust” reading of the King Follet Discourse and who have the Father as unique rather than part of a chain would have no trouble accepting this. Certainly in the past decade we’ve seen more Mormon thinkers adopting such a position even if the more traditional reading of the King Follet Discourse is dominant.

One might, however also point the the more neoPlatonic understanding of “begotten” and “proceeds” as well as noting that these terms apply only to the other members of the Godhead contextually. Thus the Father can be said to not be begotten since he is not begotten by the Son or the Holy Ghost. Likewise the meaning of this term means “from the substance of” which I think an LDS can affirm in various ways (both metaphysically and physically).

Comments

5 Responses to “Problems with Mormons and the Trinity”

Hey Clark – I read all of your posts on this question. I am an Orthodox (“Eastern” Orthodox) Christian who is very interested and familiar with the LDS church. I have to admit that I have also always wondered what the big difference was between the LDS and Orthodox teachings on the Trinity. Now, I am no philosopher and have not been to seminary, but I am well-grounded in our own services (which basically teach us what we believe through constant repetition … that is what has allowed the Orthodox faith to live on through persecution). And I have always been mystified as to what the whole difference was between the LDS and Orthodox views of the Trinity. I agree that the common American “view from the pew” on the Trinity is modalist. As I once heard a protestant minister explain the Trinity, he said “I am a father, I am also a son, and I am also a spirit.” I think that gets back to a fundamental mis-understanding of the Trinity in the Western Church, which came from of the addition of the “philioque” to the Nicene Creed. It confused the persons of the Trinity. Basically, in the Western Church, the oneness of God (and the confusion of the persons?) is emphasized. In the Eastern Church, the “threeness” is prominent, yet consumed in an overwhelming unity. A common icon of the Trinity in the Orthodox Church is that of the Trinity with a physical God the Father and Son and the Spirit in the form of a dove. This physical depiction of God the Father was canonically incorrect (and has been suppressed), but the icon still hangs in many 100+ year old Orthodox churches across the US. In newer churches it has been replaced with the traditional Orthodox icon of the Trinity, which is still “three”: the three “angels” who visited Abraham in the book of Genesis. In any case, as an Orthodox, I have never found JS’ final account of the first vision to be that odd. There are many statements in Orthodox services which are strangely similar to LDS theology. For example, from last week’s Saturday matins:

Glory be to the Father….
I sing the praises of three self-dependant Persons in one nature, the Father unbegotten, the Son begotten, and the Holy Spirit: sovereignty and power without beginning, a single Godhead.
Both now and ever….

In sum, the Orthodox view of the Trinity (and we use the word “Godhead” often) is somewhat different from what most LDS people encounter. I am just not sure how far it is from their own.

Cheers.

Clark, do you really think “most” Mormons believe in a infinite backwards regression of Father to Father? I can see an infinite forward regression, but wonder about the ubiquity of the former?

Corey, I truly wish I knew more about Eastern Orthodox Christianity because it has often seemed to me to offer far more in common with Mormons than either Protestantism or Roman Catholicism - at least in terms of theology. However I think most Mormons simply because of our culture see through a very Protestant prism at times.

Chris, I think that among those who’ve thought about the issue the infinite regress is the most common although a monarchial view (ala Blake) is becoming popular fast. Of course that’s just my perception. I have no idea how one would quantify it.

To add Orthodox marriage always struck me as having tons of parallels to Mormonism.

Yes, we’re told in the Orthodox church that our marriages are “forever”, and not until “death doth us part”. Another interesting parallel.

Leave a Reply