Book of Mormon Theology

[Rajah Manchou]

Found this "parable" of humanity in a boat illustrating the differences between Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Arminianism, and Calvinism. I realize its an oversimplification of a complex topic, and that there are many "other" options. I'm not certain these are even accurate, but was still curious to hear your thoughts. 

Pelagianism

All the people are on the boat with God. At this point, in their natural condition, they don’t need to be saved as they are not in danger. However, most (if not all) people will eventually jump in the water (sin) and find themselves in need of God’s grace. The reason why they jump in the water is because they are following numerous examples of those who jumped before them. This goes all the way back to the first two who jumped into the water, setting the first bad example. God them offers them a life preserver when they call on him for help. If they respond they will be saved (synergism).

Semi-Pelagianism

All people are in the water drowning. They are born drowning. This is the natural habitation of all humanity since the first man and woman jumped into the water. Their legs are cramping and they cannot swim to safety on their own. However, they may desire salvation on their own. Though they cannot attain it, they can call, with a wave of their arm, to God who is eagerly waiting on the edge of the boat. At the first sign of their initiative, God will then throw out the life preserver (grace). If they respond, they will be saved (synergism).

Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy

All people are in the water drowning. They are born drowning. This is the natural habitation of all humanity since the first man and woman jumped into the water. Their legs are cramping and they cannot swim to safety on their own. God, standing on the edge of the boat, makes the first initiative by throwing a life preserver to them (prevenient grace). Upon seeing this act, they make a decision to grab a hold (faith) or to swim away. If they grab a hold, God will slowly pull the rope connected to the life preserver. But they must do their part by swimming along with God’s pull (grace plus works; synergism). If at any time they let go or quit swimming, they will not be saved.

Arminianism

All people are floating in the water dead in their natural condition (total depravity). They are born dead because that has been the condition of humanity since the first man and woman jumped into the water and died (original sin). Death begets death. There must be intervention if they are to be saved. God uses his power to bring every one of them back to life (prevenient grace), but they are still in the water and in danger of drowning. With the regenerated ability to respond to God, now God throws the life preserver to them and calls on them all to grab hold of it. They then make the free-will decision on their own to grab a hold of the life preserver (faith) or to swim away. If they grab a hold, they must continue to hold as God pulls them in (synergism). They don’t need to do anything but hold on. Any effort to swim and aid God is superfluous (sola fide). They can let go of the preserver at any time and, as a consequence, lose their salvation.

Calvinism

All people are floating in the water dead in their natural condition (total depravity). They are born dead because that has been the condition of humanity since the first man and woman jumped into the water and died (original sin). Death begets death. There must be radical intervention if they are to be saved. While God calls out to all of them (general call), due to his mysterious choice, he brings back to life (regeneration) only certain people (election) while passing by the rest (reprobation). He does not use a life preserver, but grabs a hold of the elect individually and immediately pulls them onto the boat (monergism). They naturally grab a hold of God as a consequence of their regeneration (irresistible grace; sola fide). They forever stay on the boat due to their perpetual ability to recognize God’s beauty (perseverance of the saints).

Edited March 9, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Robert F. Smith]

These are theological categories completely unfamiliar to Mormons.  Moreover, Mormons do not ordinarily derive any theological points from the BofM.  Most readers of your summaries would reject Calvinism, and would opt for Arminianism.

[The Nehor]

I pioneered the little known third plan in the Council in Heaven in which, after eating the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve would be allowed to eat the fruit of the tree of life and live forever in sin. All would continue in sin and not one should be saved. No, not one. The plan died in committee.

Why was this soteriological approach left out of your options?

[JarMan]

From what I know on the subject the "parable" does a decent job but oversimplifies and overgeneralizes a bit as you might expect. The most distinct views are the two on each ends of the spectrum: Pelagianism and Calvinism. The other three overlap quite a bit and often use different terminology to explain essentially the same thing. I think we can confidently eliminate Pelagianism and Calvinism as they are far from being similar to the Book of Mormon. The relevant issues come down to the nature of man as a result of the fall, the role of free will in man's salvation, the role of grace in salvation, and the importance of perseverance (or enduring to the end). In another thread a while back we discussed several of these issues and I took the position that the Book of Mormon was essentially identical to Arminianism as described primarily by Simon Episcopius in his 1621 Arminian Confession. I haven't done a thorough soteriological study of Semi-Pelagianism or Catholicism but I know that the Arminians were often accused of being Semi-Pelagian or "Papist" which helps confirm my view that there are many similarities. Trying to tease out the differences between these three systems in order to compare them to the Book of Mormon is no easy task. I can't say I know enough about Semi-Pelagianism or Catholicism to make an educated assessment of their level of similarity to the Book of Mormon. But based on my research on Arminianism I remain of the opinion that its soteriology is consistent with the Book of Mormon.

[mfbukowski]

Semi-Pragmatism and the philosophies of men mangled by scripture.

[Rajah Manchou]

47 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Why was this soteriological approach left out of your options?

Sincere apologies. I tried to add Universal Nehorism and Semi-Nehorism but the editing window has passed. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

From what I know on the subject the "parable" does a decent job but oversimplifies and overgeneralizes a bit as you might expect. The most distinct views are the two on each ends of the spectrum: Pelagianism and Calvinism. 

I had also assumed Arminianism at first glance. But then found a number of articles giving a nod to pelagianism. Mostly related to McMurrin's view below. I'm unfamiliar with the topic, and curious what specifics would make Mormonism more similar to Arminianism than Pelagianism. Surely, McMurrin would have been familiar with both, but went with the later. Perhaps only because it might feel better to compare Mormonism to a 5th century theology? I dunno.

Edited March 10, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Rajah Manchou]

Answered my own question. McMurrin elsewhere "both pelagian and arminian tendencies"

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.co.th/&httpsredir=1&article=1051&context=byusq

Edited March 10, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Robert F. Smith]

6 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I had also assumed Arminianism at first glance. But then found a number of articles giving a nod to pelagianism. Mostly related to McMurrin's view below. I'm unfamiliar with the topic, and curious what specifics would make Mormonism more similar to Arminianism than Pelagianism. Surely, McMurrin would have been familiar with both, but went with the later. Perhaps only because it might feel better to compare Mormonism to a 5th century theology? I dunno......................

The problem with consulting McMurrin's two small books on Mormon theology and philosophy for this questionaire is that they do not deal with Book of Mormon theology, but with LDS theology -- which is a much broader subject.   However, those two small books are classics and do a very good job of explaining Mormon theology.

[JarMan]

10 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I had also assumed Arminianism at first glance. But then found a number of articles giving a nod to pelagianism. Mostly related to McMurrin's view below. I'm unfamiliar with the topic, and curious what specifics would make Mormonism more similar to Arminianism than Pelagianism. Surely, McMurrin would have been familiar with both, but went with the later. Perhaps only because it might feel better to compare Mormonism to a 5th century theology? I dunno.

I think the reason he is comparing Mormonism to Pelagianism is because compared to St. Augustine it looks similar. As I understand it, Pelagianism was partially a reaction to St. Augustine's view of freewill, grace and predestination. This same scenario played out again in the early 1600's, this time with the Calvinists taking the Augustinian position and the Arminians being in opposition to the very same things (unconditional election, lack of free will, role of good works). But Pelagianism and Arminianism, though both opposed to Augustinian/Calvin, end up in different places. The two main differences I see relate to the nature of man after the fall, and the role of grace in salvation. Pelagianism teaches that man is not inherently corrupt because of the fall while Arminianism teaches a version of total depravity that on it's surface looks different than the Book of Mormon, but is actually quite similar. On the second issue, Pelagianism almost ignores the necessity of grace for salvation and instead looks at Christ more as an example than as a savior. Arminianism teaches that it is only through grace that people are saved. In mainstream Arminianism the role of works in attaining salvation is, I think, more limited than what you see in the Book of Mormon. But you see some Arminians like Hugo Grotius that emphasized works a little more than others and appears to be a good fit with the Book of Mormon. I feel quite confident that Pelagianism is much less similar to the Book of Mormon than Arminianism.

[JarMan]

20 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Answered my own question. McMurrin elsewhere "both pelagian and arminian tendencies"

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.co.th/&httpsredir=1&article=1051&context=byusq

This is a very interesting paper by a Calvinist who looks at Mormonism and sees hyper-Arminianism. His basic thesis is that with the Book of Mormon, Mormonism starts out Arminian. And then through later developments in the Pearl of Great Price and D&C it becomes "hyper-Arminian" as the Arminian ideas are taken to their logical conclusions. 

[Rajah Manchou]

49 minutes ago, JarMan said:

I think the reason he is comparing Mormonism to Pelagianism is because compared to St. Augustine it looks similar. As I understand it, Pelagianism was partially a reaction to St. Augustine's view of freewill, grace and predestination. This same scenario played out again in the early 1600's, this time with the Calvinists taking the Augustinian position and the Arminians being in opposition to the very same things (unconditional election, lack of free will, role of good works). But Pelagianism and Arminianism, though both opposed to Augustinian/Calvin, end up in different places. The two main differences I see relate to the nature of man after the fall, and the role of grace in salvation. Pelagianism teaches that man is not inherently corrupt because of the fall while Arminianism teaches a version of total depravity that on it's surface looks different than the Book of Mormon, but is actually quite similar. On the second issue, Pelagianism almost ignores the necessity of grace for salvation and instead looks at Christ more as an example than as a savior. Arminianism teaches that it is only through grace that people are saved. In mainstream Arminianism the role of works in attaining salvation is, I think, more limited than what you see in the Book of Mormon. But you see some Arminians like Hugo Grotius that emphasized works a little more than others and appears to be a good fit with the Book of Mormon. I feel quite confident that Pelagianism is much less similar to the Book of Mormon than Arminianism.

Thanks, that clears some things up for me. What I am trying to resolve is, can we date the Book of Mormon by looking at the theology within? Specifically, what theological concepts are found in the Book of Mormon that are anachronistic to pelagianism and any other theology in Mormon and Moroni's lifetime in the 5th century AD.

I realize there are many anachronisms that have already been identified, but those usually assume total isolation of the Nephites and massive distances between the Promised Land and the Old World. I'm assuming that the Nephites, like the Rechabites, were able to receive information/revelation concerning those in Jerusalem during "angelic" ministrations of Christian apostles, monks and traders from the 200 years of peace and after. Essentially I'm assuming a Rechabite geographical setting, not necessarily an American setting.

I'm also ignoring, for the time being, that the Small Plates were not abridged and would not contain content dating later than 130 BC. I think there are ways to resolve anachronistic content in the Small Plates, because we don't know if they had been abridged by someone else before Moroni took possession of them, perhaps to fit them to the size and shape of the Large Plates and the Sealed Portion. But shelving that issue for now.

Edited March 10, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[JarMan]

41 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The problem with consulting McMurrin's two small books on Mormon theology and philosophy for this questionaire is that they do not deal with Book of Mormon theology, but with LDS theology -- which is a much broader subject.   However, those two small books are classics and do a very good job of explaining Mormon theology.

I haven't read McMurrin's books but this article seems to confirm that he is talking about Mormonism as a whole, rather than just the Book of Mormon. Distinguishing between what the Book of Mormon teaches and what Mormonism teaches is important to keep in mind in these discussions as you pointed out. I mentioned that I am confident that the Book of Mormon does not teach Pelagianism but that doesn't mean some Mormon prophets haven't veered into it from time to time. The article I linked to gives a good example of a Brigham Young quote that seems rather Pelagian. The same article also stresses the role that prevenient grace plays or does not play in Mormon theology when trying to classify Mormonism. I've argued before that the Book of Mormon actually teaches prevenient grace, but uses different terms. For example, I believe that 2 Nephi 2:26 and Mosiah 16:4 (among others) are referring to this concept when they talk about Christ redeeming us from the fall. This redemption, in my view, is not the saving redemption that we normally associate with this word. Rather it is an enabling redemption or prevenient grace that gives us free agency and allows us to choose between good and evil.

[Rajah Manchou]

23 minutes ago, JarMan said:

For example, I believe that 2 Nephi 2:26 and Mosiah 16:4 (among others) are referring to this concept when they talk about Christ redeeming us from the fall. This redemption, in my view, is not the saving redemption that we normally associate with this word. Rather it is an enabling redemption or prevenient grace that gives us free agency and allows us to choose between good and evil.

This is the kind of stuff I'm looking for. Thanks. I'd like to eventually break it down by small/large plates as well, just to determine if there are subtle differences in theology between Omni and Moroni, or the content of the 116 pages and the translation of the small plates.

Edited March 10, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[JarMan]

11 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Thanks, that clears some things up for me. What I am trying to resolve is, can we date the Book of Mormon by looking at theology within? Specifically, what theological concepts are found in the Book of Mormon that are anachronistic to pelagianism and any other theology in Mormon and Moroni's lifetime in the 5th century AD.

I realize there are many anachronisms that have already been identified, but those usually assume total isolation of the Nephites and massive distances between the Promised Land and the Old World. I'm assuming that the Nephites, like the Rechabites, were able to receive information/revelation concerning those in Jerusalem during "angelic" ministrations of Christian apostles and traders from the 200 years of peace and after. 

I'm also ignoring, for the time being, that the Small Plates were not abridged and would not contain content dating later than 130 BC. I think there are ways to resolve anachronistic content in the Small Plates, because we don't know if they had been abridged by someone else before Moroni took possession of them, perhaps to fit them to the size and shape of the Large Plates and the Sealed Portion. But shelving that issue for now.

I believe the Garden of Eden story in the Book of Mormon is anachronistic until the 17th Century. I still have a fair amount of research to do on this subject, however. Also, the scientific principles of heliocentrism and buoyancy don't fit well. Both of these could have been found in 3rd Century BC Greece but would have been long out of style by the 5th Century AD. Then there is the idea of plain and precious things being taken from the bible. I'm not sure how common that idea might have been. This was, however, a burgeoning idea in the 16th and 17th Century as more ancient manuscripts were being found and the scholars increasingly understood the Greek and Hebrew. It's hard for me to imagine people thinking along those lines before Renaissance times. And what about the great and abominable church? We're talking not too many years after Constantine so I'm not sure how well that idea fits into a 5th Century mindset. Anyway, just throwing some things out there that may or may not be relevant.

[Rajah Manchou]

26 minutes ago, JarMan said:

I believe the Garden of Eden story in the Book of Mormon is anachronistic until the 17th Century. 

Curious about this one. What elements seem out of place to you? 

[churchistrue]

I don't think the BOM is precise enough on salvation, grace, and depravity of man to make this level of distinction. Although, generally the BOM is more Arminian than Calvin.

[churchistrue]

6 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I had also assumed Arminianism at first glance. But then found a number of articles giving a nod to pelagianism. Mostly related to McMurrin's view below. I'm unfamiliar with the topic, and curious what specifics would make Mormonism more similar to Arminianism than Pelagianism. Surely, McMurrin would have been familiar with both, but went with the later. Perhaps only because it might feel better to compare Mormonism to a 5th century theology? I dunno.

I'd guess his evaluation was on Mormon teachings in general, not specifically the Book of Mormon, which is obviously a very different thing.

 

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

I'd guess his evaluation was on Mormon teachings in general, not specifically the Book of Mormon, which is obviously a very different thing.

Agreed. I'm only wondering if the Book of Mormon gives us enough information to identify elements of existing theological systems. From what I've read, and also your previous comment, I'm not certain we can. I don't know if we can read it and say that it is obviously __th century ________ism.

But others here will have more knowledge of the topic than me.

[Lagrange]

7 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Agreed. I'm only wondering if the Book of Mormon gives us enough information to identify elements of existing theological systems. From what I've read, and also your previous comment, I'm not certain we can. I don't know if we can read it and say that it is obviously __th century ________ism.

But others here will have more knowledge of the topic than me.

One of the most memorable tropes in the Book of Mormon concerns the "great and abominable church".  The passages concerning the great and abominable church could be read in terms of the Pauline fallen thrones, principalities and powers perspective written about in some detail by Krister Stehndahl, Markus Barth, John Howard Yoder and N.T. Wright.  The upshot is if that if Luther's and St. Augustine's reading of Paul did violence to Paul's writing concerning the reconciliation, salvation by faith through grace and the atonement it is likely that reading the Book of Mormon through Luther's eyes and St. Augustine's eyes will not help us understand the atonement.  

[JarMan]

20 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Curious about this one. What elements seem out of place to you? 

The way the Garden of Eden story is told seems very Miltonian. 

Quote

Until John Milton created the character of Satan for his Paradise Lost, the different attributes of Satan were usually ascribed to different entities. The angel who rebelled in Heaven was not the same as the ruler in Hell. The ruler of Hell was often seen as a sort of jailer who never fell from grace. The tempting serpent of Genesis was just a serpent. Milton combined the different parts of the character to show his fall from near-divine beauty and grace to his eventual skulking role as a jealous tempter. He was so successful in his characterization of Satan as a romantic hero who "would rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven" that his version of Satan has displaced all others.

So it’s really the story as a whole, not particularly any single element, that makes it look very 17th Century-ish. The one candidate idea for an early modern origin is Satan’s motive for tempting Adam in the garden. “And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind.” (2 Nephi 2:18); “for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself” (27). You see this idea in Grotius’ Adamus Exul but I haven’t seen it explicitly described this way in any earlier sources. Further research on this idea should help me get a better understanding of when this concept arose. 

[Rajah Manchou]

21 hours ago, JarMan said:

The way the Garden of Eden story is told seems very Miltonian. 

So it’s really the story as a whole, not particularly any single element, that makes it look very 17th Century-ish. The one candidate idea for an early modern origin is Satan’s motive for tempting Adam in the garden. “And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind.” (2 Nephi 2:18); “for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself” (27). You see this idea in Grotius’ Adamus Exul but I haven’t seen it explicitly described this way in any earlier sources. Further research on this idea should help me get a better understanding of when this concept arose. 

Grotius died 22 years before Paradise Lost was published. Are you thinking Milton carried over ideas from Adamus Exul? How does Grotius describe Satan?

[Rajah Manchou]

14 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Grotius died 22 years before Paradise Lost was published. Are you thinking Milton carried over ideas from Adamus Exul? How does Grotius describe Satan?

Answered my own question:

The Adamus exul of Grotius; or The prototype of Paradise lost

[Josh Khinder]

The Book of Mormon contains strictly Creedal theology ,  This is Creedal Theology  ONE GOD, three separate and distinct persons 

 

E. Calvin Beisner

God in Three Persons

 

The Christian Church throughout history has found in order to remain faithful to the teachings of the New Testament regarding the person and work of Christ, it had to affirm at least the following doctrines:

The doctrine of the Trinity----that in the nature of the One True God, there are three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, each fully God, Coequal and Coeternal

When we have said these three things, then—that there is but one God, that the Father and the Son and the Spirit is each a distinct person—we have enunciated the doctrine of the Trinity in its completeness.

We may condense this into a somewhat shorter statement, one which is more precise: In the nature  of the God, there are three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ( or substance )  of the one true God, there are three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit  p 24

 

“The Nicene Creed, then, with centuries of theological discussion and controversy behind it, still teaches of the Trinity as the New Testament does: that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, while distinct from each other personally, are the same God”  p 153

 

Trinity

first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168 A.D. - 183 A.D.), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220 A.D.), to express this doctrine. The propositions involved in the doctrine are these: 1. That God is one, and that there is but one God (Deut 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isa 44:6; Mark 12:29,32; John 10:30). 2. That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit. 3. That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. 4. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.

 

(from Easton's Bible Dictionary, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

 

Homoousios -God- Godhead- Substance- Essence- Being –Nature [ all Synonyms ]

 

One being. Three persons. In other words, one "what" and three "who"s. There is one being, God. There are three persons: God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The distinction is between being and person. One being, three persons. One what, three who's.

 

All the Persons of the Holy Trinity are IDENTICAL IN ESSENCE  but DISTINCT IN PERSONS

 

  John Ankerberg [Everything You Ever Wanted to know about Mormonism]

Page 104-105

1. There is Only One God

2. The Father is God;

3. Jesus Christ, the Son, is God

4. The Holy Spirit is a Person, is eternal and is therefore God

5. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons.

 

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

1.       (n.) The union of three persons (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, so that all the three are one God as to substance, but three persons as to individuality.

 

 

“Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and co-eternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

(White, James R. “The Forgotten Trinity” (p. 26). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition)

 

Tim tebow's father is a Christian Evangelist and here is his statement on the Trinity

 We believe God is Trinity, which means that He is one God who has eternally existed in three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Each one is fully God. God is completely unified in His diversity. All persons of the Trinity are equal , nature, and substance, but they are different in persons. All things are from the Father, through the Son, and by the Holy Spirit. Each person of the Godhead shares all the attributes of God, including eternality, freedom, holiness, righteousness, immutability, omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, happiness, wisdom, sovereignty, perfection, goodness, and justice, grace, and mercy. God is holy, which means that he is transcendent over creation. He is the source of life. Nothing exists apart from His sustaining power. Matthew 28:18–19; Mark 12:29; John 1:14; Acts 5:3–4; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Hebrews 1:1–3; Revelation 1:4–6.

 

 Hank Hanegraaff, The Complete Bible Answer Book—Collector’s Edition (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008)

 

While it has become increasingly popular to suggest that the doctrine of the Trinity is derived from pagan sources, in reality, this Christian essential is thoroughly biblical. The word “Trinity”—like “incarnation”— is not found in Scripture; however, it aptly codifies what God has condescended to reveal to us about his nature and being. In short, the Trinitarian platform contains three planks: (1) there is but one God; (2) the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; (3) Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternally distinct.

 

The first plank underscores that there is only one God. Christianity is not polytheistic but fiercely monotheistic. “You are my witnesses, declares the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me” (Isaiah 43:10, .

 

The second plank emphasizes that in hundreds of Scripture passages the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are declared to be fully and completely God. As a case in point, the apostle Paul says that, “there is but one God the Father” (1 Corinthians 8:6). The Father, speaking of the Son, says, “Your throne, O God, will last forever and forever” (Hebrews 1:8). And when Ananias “lied to the Holy Spirit,” Peter points out that he had “not lied to men but to God” (Acts 5:3–4).

 

The third plank of the Trinitarian platform asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternally distinct. Scripture clearly portrays subject/object relationships between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For example, the Father and Son love one another, speak to each other (John 17:1–26), and together send the Holy Spirit (John 15:26). Additionally, Jesus proclaims that he and the Father are two distinct witnesses and two distinct judges (John 8:14–18). If Jesus were himself the Father, his argument would have been not only irrelevant but also fatally flawed; and if such were the case, he could not have been fully God.

 

It is important to note that when Trinitarians speak of one God they are referring to the nature or essence of God. Moreover, when they speak of persons they are referring to personal self-distinctions within the Godhead. Put another way, we believe in one What and three Who’s.

 

 For further study, see James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2001).

 

https://i.imgur.com/osAmiy2.jpg

 

[Josh Khinder]

President Charles W. Penrose  agrees with me 

Answers to Gospel Questions Vol. 3 pp 98-99 under Counsel given by President Charles W. Penrose

Now, some of our brethren have taken up quite a discussion as to the fulness of the everlasting gospel. We are told that the Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel, that those who like to get up a dispute, say that the Book of Mormon does not contain any reference to the work of salvation for the dead, and that there are many other things pertaining to the gospel that are not developed in that book, and yet we are told that the book contains "the fulness of the everlasting gospel." well what is the fulnesspel? You read carefully the revelation in regard to the three glories, section 76, in the Doctrine and Covanants, and you find there defined what the gospel is, There God the Eternal Father, and Jesus Christ, his son, and the Holy Ghost, are held up as the three persons in the Trinity-the one God the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, all three being one God. When people believe in that doctrine and obey the ordinances which are spoken of in the same list of principals, you get the fulness of the gospel for this reason:

General Conference Report, April 1922, pp 27-28.

Edited March 12, 2018 by Josh Khinder