Archive for October, 2022

Why Jesus BEING the Law of Moses is a BIG Problem

Posted: October 25, 2022 in Christology, Fred Anson, Jesus Christ, Mormon Studies, The Chosen TV Series
12

The Chosen Season 3 Official Trailer. The scene in question starts @1:29.

Concerns About “The Chosen: Season 3 Official Trailer”

by Fred W. Anson
Introduction
A week ago The Chosen broadcast series posted its official Season 3 trailer. At the one minute, twenty-nine second mark a scene starts in which the actor playing Jesus Christ says, “I am the Law of Moses”. And with those words the Internet, erupted in a hail of words with one side denouncing all or part of The Chosen and its creator/producer/showrunner Dallas Jenkins and the one side defending both. 

I find myself in the middle because let’s face it, none of us (including me) have seen the final version of the scene yet and we don’t, therefore, know the full and complete context for this line. Who knows, given the context of the full scene perhaps this line is perfectly fine. However, that said, just taken at face value, it is extremely problematic. This article explains why. 

That said, I must add, that fanning the fire has been The Chosen team’s weak canned response to inquiries from myself and others regarding the question which thus far has been as follows: 

“Jesus does not say he’s the law of Moses in the Book of Mormon (which Dallas hasn’t read), nor does he use those exact words in Scripture (like most things he says in the show). But either way, Dallas wrote the line for two reasons: one, he thought it was really cool and the kind of thing Jesus could say in response; and two, it’s theologically plausible. He’s the Word, he’s the Creator, he’s the Law.”
(see screenshots included elsewhere in this article) 

This article is, in fact, an expanded (though more tightly edited and polished) version of my own reply to this less-than-satisfactory explanation. I hope that it helps brings clarity to this situation, as well as an impetus to The Chosen team to rectify this problem before this particular episode airs. 

Why This is a Problem
Some have suggested that Jesus saying “I am the Law of Moses” isn’t much of a problem at all – a molehill, not a mountain. Here’s why it is, in fact, the latter:

1) It’s not only unbiblical, it’s utterly unbiblical – foreign in word and concept.
Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus say this and neither do the Apostles, the Old Testament Prophets nor the Patriarchs – up to and including Moses Himself in the Torah. This is true both explicitly AND implicitly. It can be found nowhere in the Bible in either word or in concept, it is a teaching that is totally and completely foreign to the Bible.

So why then is Mr. Jenkins putting words in the mouth of The Chosen’s Christ when there is no biblical support or justification for it? It raises some real issues about Dallas Jenkins’ commitment to biblical fidelity, doesn’t it? Does this mean that we can expect to see more “missteps” like this going forward? That is more speculative theology that has utterly no basis in biblical reality?

Time will only tell.

2) Taken to its logical conclusion it teaches another gospel and another Jesus.
The Chosen team’s explanation for the line in their canned response to inquiries on it is as follows,

“Dallas wrote the line for two reasons: one, he thought it was really cool and the kind of thing Jesus could say in response; and two, it’s theologically plausible. He’s the Word, he’s the Creator, he’s the Law.”

This flippant, dismissive (one might even say adolescent) justification is fraught with big theological problems. Yes, we readily acknowledge and accept the fact that the Bible does say that Christ is the Word (Greek: “logos” meaning “word,” “reason,” or “plan” according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica), and He is the Creator just as John 1 so clearly states:

John 1 KJV
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

However, again, nowhere does the Bible state that Jesus Christ is the Law of Moses, because, plainly stated, biblically speaking He’s not, never was, and never will be. Rather, both the words of the Bible and Christ Himself are quite clear that He was both under the Mosiac Law and fulfilled the Law of Moses so that He might redeem those who were likewise born under it by living a sinless life and atoning for our sin by redeeming us with through His sacrificial death. This isn’t just some guy on the Internet’s opinion it is precisely and explicitly what the Bible says:

Galatians 4:4-5 KJV
“But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.”

Luke 24:44 KJV
‘And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.’

Furthermore, theologically, to say that Jesus is the Law of Moses doesn’t just run counter to that, it means that disobeying the Law of Moses in whole or in part is a form of rejecting Christ Himself in part or in whole as well. This is fraught with theological problems and the potential for heresy – such as the intermingling of Mosaic Law and the gospel that Paul so boldly and directly denounced as heresy in the book of Galatians (as well as Romans, Ephesians, and other New Testament books) and that the other Apostles echoed Paul in doing so in their own New Testament books. Or, as Bryan Catherman on the “Salty Believer” website said so well: 

‘Now, the Bible does say Jesus is the Word, the revelation of the living God to his creation (John 1:1), but that is by no means the same as suggesting Jesus is the Law. Jesus is not the Law. There is a clear contrast between the Old and the New Covenants. There is a compelling difference between the Law that “came along to multiply the trespass” and the grace reigning “through righteousness, resulting in eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 5:20-21).’
(Bryan Catherman, “Jesus Is the Law of Moses? Did The Chosen Get This Right?”) 

And Lutheran Theologian Steven Paulson, referring to neither The Chosen nor the Book of Mormon, was even more expansive when he said:

“Luther in his …Galatians Commentary …directly asserts, ‘Christ is not the Law…Christ is not my work.’ Much earlier in this sermon from 1 Timothy, he makes the same assertion, but he also adds in case we are in need of clarification, “The Holy Spirit is not the Law nor vice versa.” God is not the Law nor vice versa.

Therefore, the proper use of the Law consists of not introducing it where it does not belong. To understand this use rightly, you must divide man into two parts and make a sharp distinction between both, namely, the old and the new, as Paul divided them [e.g., Eph. 4:22-24]. Leave the new man completely unentangled by laws; urge the old man ceaselessly with laws and give him no rest from them. Then you have used the Law properly and well. The new man cannot at all be helped by works; he must have something higher, namely, Christ, who is not a law or a work but a gift and present, nothing but grace and mercy of God…”
(Steve D. Paulson, “LW 56, 105, 106-107 Sermons III 1 Timothy 1:8-11”)

And, ironically, this “blurring of the lines” that these authors are warning us about is the very false gospel that the Book of Mormon teaches, as Pam Hanvey summarized so nicely in her classic article on the topic:

‘The Book of Mormon claims to be, “Another Testament of Jesus Christ” but when it is put to the test, the gospel it embodies is nothing more than a man made concoction of of law mixed with grace; a tainted gospel that is condemned by the Apostle Paul.

In Galatians 5:4 (AKJV) Paul writes, “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; you are fallen from grace.” He reiterates his point in Romans 4:13-14 (KJV), “For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect.”’
(Pam Hanvey (writing as “Marie Johnson”), “The Bible v. The Book of Mormon Gospel”)

So the fact that Dallas Jenkins and his staff could or would call this statement from The Chosen’s Jesus “theologically plausible” and “really cool and the kind of thing Jesus could say” is extremely troubling, to say the least. 

3) While it’s never taught in the Bible, it is taught in the Book of Mormon
The biggest question for many folks, especially those with concerns about Dallas Jenkin’s affiliation with Mormons and the LdS Church, is this: Why is The Chosen’s Christ teaching something that is in The Book of Mormon but not the Bible? Does this subtle shift represent the long-feared syncretism of Biblical Christianity with Mormonism that some of The Chosen’s more brazen critics have been warning would eventually manifest on the screen given Mr. Jenkins’ oft-questioned alliance with Mormons and their church? 

Even more concerning is that when I and others have contacted The Chosen team on their Facebook page (see https://www.facebook.com/InsideTheChosen) this is the canned, boilerplate response that we received on this point:

“Jesus does not say he’s the law of Moses in the Book of Mormon (which Dallas hasn’t read)”.

Respectfully, friends, this is the kind of manipulative deflection and obfuscation that preys on the presumed ignorance of the other party that those of us in Mormon Studies see pretty much non-stop from rank-and-file Mormon Apologists. Stated plainly, given the Book of Mormon source (3 Nephi 15:9) in its full and complete context this statement is simply not true. That is “I am the Law of Moses” is indeed exactly what the Book of Mormon Jesus is saying when he says the shortened version “I am the law” in the Book of Mormon. If you doubt me, here is that passage for your consideration: 

3 Nephi 15
2 And it came to pass that when Jesus had said these words he perceived that there were some among them who marveled, and wondered what he would concerning the law of Moses; for they understood not the saying that old things had passed away, and that all things had become new.

3 And he said unto them: Marvel not that I said unto you that old things had passed away, and that all things had become new.

4 Behold, I say unto you that the law is fulfilled that was given unto Moses.

5 Behold, I am he that gave the law, and I am he who covenanted with my people Israel; therefore, the law in me is fulfilled, for I have come to fulfil the law; therefore it hath an end.

6 Behold, I do not destroy the prophets, for as many as have not been fulfilled in me, verily I say unto you, shall all be fulfilled.

7 And because I said unto you that old things have passed away, I do not destroy that which hath been spoken concerning things which are to come.

8 For behold, the covenant which I have made with my people is not all fulfilled; but the law which was given unto Moses hath an end in me.

9 Behold, I am the law, and the light. Look unto me, and endure to the end, and ye shall live; for unto him that endureth to the end will I give eternal life.

10 Behold, I have given unto you the commandments; therefore keep my commandments. And this is the law and the prophets, for they truly testified of me.

What’s more, the declaration that Dallas Jenkins hasn’t read the Book of Mormon is relevant how exactly? The fact of the matter is that he is citing from the Book of Mormon – be it intentionally or accidentally.  Christians in Mormon Studies who know the Book of Mormon saw the connection immediately and it gave us all pause – a big, long, stunned pause as in, “Did he really, really, really just say that?” And, yes, he did! 

So if Dallas Jenkins really, really, really wanted to hand those in Mormon Studies (and this author, for the record, has not been one of them, I have been a public supporter since Season 1) who have been concerned about his cozy relationship with the LdS Church and its members, bullets to snipe at The Chosen with, then it’s Mission Accomplished! Well done, Mr. Jenkins, well done indeed, your most vocal critics are locked, loaded, and ready to go – and they’ll be yelling, “Thanks for the free ammo, bro!” when they go full “Bonnie and Clyde” on y’all. 

But let’s back up and get “real” here, are they seriously telling us that the Mormons on The Chosen team, didn’t point all this out to him? Really? Seriously? Please paint me skeptical. Those of us who know and understand how Mormon Culture works, know better and we know that “small” details like quotes from the Book of Mormon in popular media are almost never missed by Latter-day Saints – heck they’ll even eisegete them into things if they need to! This is especially incredulous when you consider the fact that the official 2020 LdS Church Home Ministry manual “Come Follow Me” has a lesson entitled, “September 21–27. 3 Nephi 12–16: “I Am the Law, and the Light” in it which references the 3 Nephi 15:9 passage directly: 

“Like the law of Moses, this law points us to Christ—the only One who can save and perfect us. “Behold,” He said, “I am the law, and the light. Look unto me, and endure to the end, and ye shall live” (3 Nephi 15:9).”
(LdS Church, “September 21–27. 3 Nephi 12–16: “I Am the Law, and the Light”, in the “Come, Follow Me—For Individuals and Families: Book of Mormon 2020″ manual) 

So, I call either baloney – or at least, “major fail” – on Mr. Jenkins’ Mormon friends and colleagues. You all win the tallest Dundie in the box, for the biggest fumble of Season 3 so far.  So if y’all are wondering who provided that hell storm of live rounds that you’re now seeing coming from the Biblical Christian side of the divide came from, you keep just go look in a mirror and you’ll find the culprit. Self-inflicted wounds are the worst, aren’t they Team Chosen?   

4) Regardless of whether or not The Book of Mormon was the source for this line or not, this raises serious questions about the soundness of Dallas Jenkins’ theology in general.
Dallas Jenkins claims that his scripts are vetted by a panel of Christians from various traditions and denominations prior to being shot. If that’s true then how in the world did they not catch a rather blatant misstep into an area of theological speculation that is as unbiblical and fraught with problems as this one?

Now if The Chosen Jesus had said to the Pharisee in the scene, “I am here to fulfill the Law of Moses” (or something like that) we wouldn’t be having this conversation because that’s biblical. But he didn’t, he is teaching a false gospel from The Book of Mormon instead, isn’t he? Mr. Jenkins and team, how could you all not see that would be a major problem? Why didn’t you woodcraft this line so that it was biblical rather than a squirming can of worms? 

And trust me, I know them well, the Biblical Christians are going to be howling about this if the rest of the scene in the final cut that actually airs, doesn’t remediate this major misstep somehow. It ain’t gonna get better, Team Chosen, it’s gonna get worse! In fact, even I may be withdrawing my long-held support of The Chosen and joining your critics in denouncing it as, minimally, theologically compromised, and, maximally, tainted with Mormon heresies. Team Chosen, I am not going to sit idly by while Dallas Jenkins allows Mormon dogma slowly begin to infect and degrade what to this point has been, at least in my opinion, a biblically sound television series. 

So, I highly recommend and would politely and respectfully (but pointedly) suggest that you all fix this before this episode of Season 3 drops. And, no, that doesn’t mean yet another long-winded rambling post-show “rap” from Dallas explaining why “it’s all OK after it, kids!” airs that we all now just roll our eyes at (that tactic has “played”, Mr. Jenkins, please stop – more walk less talk, please!).

That means that it needs to be fixed in post-production before it goes “gold”, like that. No, it’s cheap; no, it’s not easy; but, yes, it’s the right thing to do. And if you do, I can assure you that I will continue to support, and even defend, The Chosen TV series despite the misgivings about Mr. Jenkins’ theology and judgment that I have had for some time despite my great love for the screen product that he has given us. 

Again, and to sum it all up, if it’s true that Dallas Jenkins hasn’t read The Book of Mormon then putting these words into the mouth of Jesus raises some real issues about just how theologically sound Dallas Jenkins is and just how much discernment this showrunner who claims to hold to biblical orthodoxy actually possesses. If so, does this “ball drop” mean that we can expect to see more facepalm moments like this going forward? More really, really, really bad theology that has no biblical basis or justification at all, is that what we should expect from The Chosen? 

Time will only tell.

Friends, this is a problem. A big problem. And, with all due respect, Mr. Jenkins you need to fix it.

Now. 

Screenshot of the trailer at the exact time when the actor playing Christ says, “I am The Law of Moses” (@1:42).

 

APPENDIX 1: My Direct Message Session With The Chosen Staff on Their Facebook Page
Here are the screenshots of my direct message conversation with The Chosen staff on 2022-10-22 for the record – typos and all. Click on the images to zoom them if you are still having trouble reading them. If you’re on a small-screen mobile device (like a phone or tablet) turn it sideways into “landscape” mode as well. 

This was The Chosen team’s final response to all my concerns and my reasons for them.

APPENDIX 2: Why the Term “Canned Response” Isn’t Hyperbole
For those who may be of the opinion that my use of the term “canned response” was hyperbolic, here’s another example of it from another person on Facebook (name redacted upon request) who received the exact same response from The Chosen team that I did. We are two such examples of this, but others have confirmed that they too received exactly the same response as well. 

Another example of The Chosen’s canned DM response whenever queried about this issue via Facebook Messenger.

APPENDIX 3: The Exact Time in the Trailer Where It’s Said
At the end of the article is a screenshot of the Season 3 Trailer at the exact timestamp @1:42 where The Chosen Christ says, “I am the Law of Moses”. The quoted text has been added to this screen capture by this author because the YouTube closed caption and subtitling systems weren’t working for this video when it was screen captured on 2002-10-23 at approximately 2:15PM US Pacific time. You can click on the image or the link on the timestamp in the image caption to validate all this.

 
 
 

The 10 Myths Part 5: “The Biblical Christian God is a monster who sends good people to hell…”

Posted: October 23, 2022 in Matthew Eklund, Mormon Studies, The 10 Myths Mormons Believe About Christianity
0
We are, as Paul declares, “without excuse”

“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse…”
(Romans 1:20 NKJV)

by Matthew D. Eklund
Introduction
Mormonism is fueled by faith-promoting stories. No one said this better than Mormon Apostle, Bruce R. McConkie, “We have in the Church an untapped, almost unknown, treasury of inspiring and faith-promoting stories. They are the best of their kind and there are thousands of them.” (“The How and Why of Faith-promoting Stories”, New Era magazine, July 1978). Unfortunately, some of them, as another Mormon Apostle said well, only provide “…a kind of theological Twinkie—spiritually empty calories?” (Jeffrey R. Holland, “A Teacher Come from God”, Spring General Conference 1998). This series exposes the following ten “Twinkies”…

10 Myths That Mormonism Tells About Biblical Christianity

  1. Biblical Christianity apostatized.
  2. The Bible has been corrupted.
  3. Biblical Christians believe in cheap grace.
  4. Biblical Christians believe Christ prayed to Himself.
  5. The Biblical Christian God is a monster who sends good people to hell just because they never had a chance to hear the gospel.
  6. Biblical Christians worship the cross and the Bible.
  7. Biblical Christians have no priesthood.
  8. Biblical Christian Pastors and Apologists practice Priestcraft – they’re only in it for the money.
  9. Biblical Christians hate Mormons.
  10. Biblical Christianity is divided into 10,000+ sects, all believing in different paths to salvation.

… and replaces them with nourishing truth. Let’s talk about the one that’s bolded, shall we?

The Myth
“The Biblical Christian God is a monster who sends good people to hell just because they never had a chance to hear the gospel.”

Why It’s a Myth
Few topics ignite people’s imagination, fear, or indignation as the historic Christian understanding of hell. It has been understood as a place of torment for sinners without mercy or reprieve which endures for all time and eternity. The view of hell from the perspective of the teachings of “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (hereafter LDS) differs significantly from that of the historic Christian understanding of hell; they have a temporary hell which is called “Spirit Prison” for those who died over the age of accountability (8 years old) and had not yet accepted the LDS “restored gospel.”  and a permanent hell for those who rejected the Plan of Salvation in the pre-mortal council in heaven or for those who commit the unpardonable sin of denying the Holy Ghost.1

There are two presumptions involved with this myth that must be addressed:

  1. People, even those who have not heard the gospel, are (or may be) good.
  2. It would be unjust for God to send people to hell who have not heard the gospel.

A logical syllogism2 can be made for these presumptions:

Premise 1: If someone is ignorant of the law, they are not held responsible for breaking that law.
Premise 2: If someone is not held responsible for breaking that law, they should not be punished for breaking that law.
Conclusion: If someone is ignorant of the law, they should not be punished for breaking that law.

A second related one can be made:

Premise 1: If someone is ignorant of the entirety of the law, they are innocent of breaking any laws.
Premise 2: If someone is innocent of breaking any laws, they are good.
Conclusion: If someone is ignorant of the entirety of the law, they are good.

Before introducing the Christian understanding of hell, these presumptions should be addressed on a logical and experiential basis. As for the first syllogism, is the first premise true, i.e., if someone is ignorant of the law, are they not to be held responsible for breaking that law? This would mean that an act is only immoral if it is committed with the full knowledge and recognition that it is immoral.

Let’s step back and use the analogy of man-made laws as they relate to God’s law since sin is essentially the breaking of God’s law, “sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:4, NKJV). If someone were ignorant of either the law or the means to escape the punishment for their crimes against the law, does that automatically make someone innocent when they are found breaking the law? For example, if someone didn’t see a speed limit sign on a stretch of road and significantly exceeded the speed limit, does their oversight render them innocent of breaking the traffic code? No; their ignorance does not make them innocent. A crime is a crime whether one knows what they are doing is a crime or not. Perhaps law enforcement would choose to show mercy and abstain from issuing a ticket or arresting such a person for breaking the law based on those circumstances, but they have every right to enforce the law by punishing the perpetrator accordingly. It would hardly make the law enforcement officer a “monster” for giving a person the ticket.

Let’s examine the second syllogism. It seems reasonable that if one were ignorant of all of the laws that are in force, not just a few of them, such a person would be innocent. Imagine a traveler to a secluded island that had been completely cut off from any outside contact. He is completely unaware of any of the laws that have been enforced on that island. Perhaps the inhabitants of the island would also show mercy to the man if he were to break their laws. But, as with the previous example of someone who broke the speed limit, if the inhabitants of the island chose to enforce their laws, as sovereigns of that island, they would be fully in their rights to enforce those laws if they chose to do so. Even if that were not the case and it would be immoral for them to enforce their laws on a traveler who is ignorant of their culture, expectations, laws, and social norms. So, is that the case for mankind and God’s laws as well? That is what will now be addressed.

“The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard.”
(Psalm 19, NKJV)

How It’s a Myth
Romans is a beautiful and masterful work crafted by the apostle Paul. He starts by explaining that even those who do not believe in God know that there is a God because “what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead” (Romans 1:19-20, NKJV). What is made known to all men? According to Paul here, all men know of God’s “eternal power” and “Godhead” (sometimes translated as “divine nature” as in the English Standard Version or New American Standard Bible). Now that we know what is revealed to men, how is it revealed to them? Paul says God has revealed these attributes to man: “what may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has shown it to them” (Romans 1:19, NKJV) and this has been done “since the creation of the world…by the things that are made.”  Through creation itself, God reveals his eternal power and divinity.  And how does this knowledge affect mankind? We are, as Paul declares, “without excuse” (Romans 1:20, NKJV).

We don’t have a reason to claim we didn’t know at least the existence of God, even if we don’t know much about him. Sure, there are many who claim they either know or strongly believe there is a lack of evidence for such a being, but Scripture witnesses that such people “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18, NKJV). This could be knowingly or unknowingly; when men refuse to acknowledge the existence of God who has made himself known to them in creation, they are rejecting that truth that has been given to all people everywhere. This agrees with the Psalmist who declared, “The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork.” (Psalm 19:1, NKJV) Heaven is the canvas of God’s masterful art, and in every sunset, every constellation, every strand of DNA, we see the paint strokes from the master Artist.

As if this weren’t enough, Paul continues this topic in chapter 2 of Romans to show that man is not only without excuse as to knowing there is a God, but we are also without excuse to knowing at least some of God’s laws.3 Here, he is criticizing Israelites who boast of having been given God’s laws through Moses and the other prophets in the Torah (law) of the Old Testament. Paul extols the unbelieving nations, the Gentiles, who seek to follow at least some of God’s laws (whether protecting life, respecting ownership of property, or whatever law that may be).

Paul says that “when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them” (Romans 2:14-15, NKJV).

Even Gentiles who had never heard of Moses, the Torah, the creation narrative in Genesis, the Messiah, or anything related to the laws given to Israel, do what is right by the dictates of their consciences. Paul says they do this because men show evidence of “the work of the law written in their hearts.” This is the conscience God gave to man in the beginning, and though it is imperfect due to the fall, a portion of that law written on our ancestors’ hearts still exists in the soul of man everywhere (what Latter-day Saints would call the “light of Christ”). One need only consider the universality of The Golden Rule (“…you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord” Leviticus 19:18, NKJV) across cultures to see this:4

Ancient Egypt: “Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do.”
(The Eloquent Peasant” c. 2040–1650 BCE)

Ancient India: “Do not do to others what you know has hurt yourself.”
(Kural 316 from “Book of Virtue of the Tirukkuṛa”, c. 1st century BCE to 5th century CE)

Ancient Greece: “Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing.”
(Thales, c. 624–c. 546 BCE)

Thus, no man anywhere is completely ignorant of all of God’s laws; our consciences prick us at one point or another when we do not do that which is lawful according to the dictates of God’s moral law. The second syllogism then falls apart in premise 1. Thus, Paul can say in chapter 3 of Romans, “there is none righteous, no, not one” (Romans 3:10, NKVJ) and “for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23, NKJV).

“Indeed heaven and the highest heavens belong to the Lord your God, also the earth with all that is in it.”
(Deuteronomy 10:4, NKJV)

Why It Matters
Having established that none can claim ignorance of the existence of God and of God’s laws, does this not destroy the first premises of both of the syllogisms I presented above? There is no one who is truly and completely innocent of the knowledge of God and his laws, and so to use this as evidence that God is “a monster who sends good people to hell” is incorrect since it has been sufficiently shown that none are good nor are they ignorant or innocent. That is, how can God be a “monster” for exercising justice against anyone when that person is guilty of breaking the very law that He has woven into His creation?

But why does this matter? This shows us that we are sinful creatures. We cannot hope to stand innocent before God based on our works. We cannot be righteous by what we do in terms of trying to keep God’s law by our own gumption and best efforts. And shaking our fists at God for executing justice against those who deserve punishment won’t fix the problem, either. God is fully just and right to punish those who break his law as he sees fit, and he has declared that “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23, NKJV).

However, there is a “but” that follows this statement from Paul. The sentence reads, “the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 6:23, NKJV) Thankfully, God has revealed in the person of Jesus Christ and passed down to us through the Christian faith and the Holy Scriptures the ‘good news of the gospel. God has not left all of mankind in this condemned state. He extends his arms open to anyone who will simply turn away from their sins and trust in Christ to rescue them from their sinful state. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16) This is the only way to escape eternal death and punishment for our sins against God.

And I pray each one who reads this article will do so, trusting in nothing they can do or offer to God, but that they simply do as Abraham did: “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness” (Romans 4:3, NKJV). He was justified (declared innocent and righteous) because the righteousness of Christ was credited to him “apart from works” (Romans 4:6, NKJV). And this is the only way we can become completely and wholly righteous before God, standing before him at the judgment in the stainless, seamless, glorious righteousness of Jesus given to us.

But this, of course, always leads to the nagging question, “That’s good news for those who have heard of the glorious news of this gift of God and have received eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord, but what about those who haven’t?” Well, first, looking at Christian Church history, this burning question above all else, has driven Christian Missionaries since the ascension of Christ in glory. As Paul says so well elsewhere in Romans:

“How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!”’ (Romans 10:14-15, NKJV)

“When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have ordained, what is man that You are mindful of him,”
(Psalm 8:3-4, NKJV)

Second, as Theologian, R.C. Sproul points out:

“The New Testament makes it clear that people will be judged according to the light that they have. All the elements of the Old Testament Law are not known by people living in remote parts of the world. But we read that they do have a law “written on their hearts” (Romans 2:15). They are judged by the law they do not know and are found wanting. No one keeps the ethic he has even if he invents it himself….

Thus if a person in a remote area has never heard of Christ, he will not be punished for that. What he will be punished for is the rejection of the Father of whom he has heard and for the disobedience to the law that is written on his heart. Again, we must remember that people are not rejected for what they haven’t heard but for what they have heard.”
(R.C. Sproul, “Objections answered”, ellipses added for the sake of brevity)

Thus, God will be both just and equitable in His final judgment, we have His word on it. The Bible says that it is both, “they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20, NKJV) and, “(… the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves, their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.” (Romans 2:15-16, NKJV) and the Bible is also clear that on their own all men will fail at this.

So, now let’s compare what the witness from God as we have seen directly from the pages of the Bible with what Joseph Smith had to say about hell. He says of those deserving of everlasting condemnation, the ‘sons of perdition,’ the following:

“All sins shall be forgiven except the sin against the Holy Ghost; for Jesus will save all except the sons of perdition. What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him. He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it; and from that time he begins to be an enemy… You cannot save such persons; you cannot bring them to repentance: they make open war like the Devil, and awful is the consequence.”
(Joseph Smith Jr. (Joseph Fielding Smith, compiler), “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith”, ellipses added for the sake of brevity)

Thus we see that Joseph Smith asserted that the only ones destined for “hell” are those who had a nearly perfect knowledge of not simply the existence of God, but also a nearly perfect knowledge of Christ and his work and of the truthfulness of the work of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

This places those who consider Joseph Smith a true prophet in a dilemma: do they believe the Bible, or do they believe Joseph Smith? Do they choose God’s truth, or do we choose something that sounds more comforting but, in reality, isn’t biblical? If you find yourself in this dilemma I urge you to be reconciled to what the Word of God has to say on the topic and reject the erroneous teachings of Joseph Smith.

Summary and Conclusion
The argument that “God is a monster who sends good people to hell” is typically based on faulty argumentation. It assumes that people are good, innocent, and/or should not be held accountable for breaking God’s laws. Scripture states that, due to the fall of mankind, we are not by nature good, innocent, or guiltless before God if left to ourselves. Neither can we become good by our works according to God’s law because we cannot obey it perfectly. It is only by trusting in God in Jesus Christ, turning away from our sins, and not resting on our own good works to make us righteous before God that we may be declared justified (innocent or righteous) before him.

“God has so clearly, clearly manifested Himself ever since the creation of the world, through everything that is made, that you can never use ignorance as an excuse before God.”
(R.C. Sproul, “All Are Without Excuse”)

NOTES
1 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Hell,” Guide to the Scriptures.

2 A “syllogism” can be defined as “a process of logic in which two general statements lead to a more particular statement” (see Cambridge Dictionary, see “syllogism”). That definition may not really be that helpful, so I’ll try to offer a simpler one. With a syllogism, two premises are presented which lead to a conclusion. The conclusion is only true if both premises are also true; if one or both premises are not true or are not logically sound, then the conclusion need not necessarily follow. One form of syllogism, the hypothetical syllogism, says that if “A” is true, then “B.” If “B” is true, then “C.” The conclusion is, then, that if “A” is true, then “C” is true. This is the type of syllogism used in this article.

3 Throughout Romans 2 and elsewhere, Paul refers to “law.” It is common in my experience for LDS to point to Paul’s references of “law” as referring only to the law given to Moses on Mt. Sinai (and usually they further limit this to the ceremonial laws, animal sacrifices, other temple sacrifices and ritual cleanliness, etc.).

Thus, in so limiting Paul’s use of “law” to an outdated law, it is understood that God condemns seeking righteousness by laws that are no longer in force while allowing for seeking righteousness by the laws of God employed in the “new and everlasting covenant.” This ultimately results in rejection of justification by grace alone through faith alone as has been taught throughout church history and most clearly made known since the Protestant Reformation.

If their explanation were the case, then they may have a good reason to question why all people everywhere are judged guilty by a law that is no longer in force. Certainly, parts of the law given to Israel no longer apply.

But much does still apply, namely, the moral laws taught in the 10 Commandments. This is evident when Paul, returning to Romans 2, asks those who claim to rest in the law and their law keeping as their righteousness before God, “You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal? You who say, “Do not commit adultery,” do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law?” (Romans 2:21-23, NKJV). Paul here refers explicitly to the eighth commandment against stealing, the seventh commandment against adultery, and the second commandment against idols. He seems to be indicating these are moral principles that are still in force for Israelites today.

Not only that, this is the same law by which Gentiles “who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law” (Romans 2:14, NKJV) when they are following the dictates of their consciences. There is no evidence to suggest that these Gentiles were spontaneously choosing to circumcise their infant boys, offer animal sacrifices according to Torah law, or any other ceremonial component of the law of Moses. But if that is what Paul meant by “law” throughout Romans, then that is what Paul would be speaking of here. However, the more consistent explanation is that Paul was not using the word “law” to strictly speak of the ceremonial law of Moses; the Gentiles were obeying their consciences in regard to the moral law of God, the law by which all men everywhere will be judged.

For a scholarly treatise on the moral, ceremonial, and civil/judicial distinctions in the law of Moses as understood in the Reformed tradition and earlier, I recommend reading, “From the Finger of God: The Biblical and Theological Basis for the Threefold Division of the Law” by Philip S. Ross.

4 These examples are from Wikipedia, “Golden Rule”. The “Got Questions” website also cites these examples from the Orient that are just as enlightening:

Confucianism: “Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you”
(Analects 15:23)

Hinduism: “This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you”
(Mahabharata 5:1517)

Buddhism: “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful”
(Udanavarga 5:18)

About the Author
Matthew D. Eklund was born and grew up in northern Utah. He has one sister, one half-brother, and 11 step-siblings. He served as a full-time LDS missionary to France and Belgium as a French-speaking missionary. He returned home and earned several degrees in Mechanical Engineering and Nuclear Engineering at The University of Utah in Salt Lake City, Utah, and at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York. During his doctoral studies in New York, he resigned from the LDS faith in 2017. He started attending a Reformed Baptist church outside of Albany, New York which holds to the 1677/1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. There in 2019, he was baptized as an Evangelical Protestant Christian and became a member of that congregation of believers. At that church, he met his future wife, Rebekah. They now live in Idaho Falls, Idaho where Matthew is a researcher at Idaho National Laboratory.

The 10 Myths Part 4: “Biblical Christians believe Christ prayed to Himself.”

Posted: October 9, 2022 in Mormon Studies, Paul Nurnberg, The 10 Myths Mormons Believe About Christianity, The Trinity
0
Biblical Christians fully acknowledge the one-ness and  the three-ness of God

A detail from Andrea del Verrocchio and Leonardo da Vinci, “Battesimo di Cristo (The Baptism of Christ)”, c.1475. Please note how this allegedly “apostate” artist has clearly depicted the three persons of the Trinity as distinct.

by Paul Nurnberg
Introduction
Mormonism is fueled by faith-promoting stories. No one said this better than Mormon Apostle, Bruce R. McConkie, “We have in the Church an untapped, almost unknown, treasury of inspiring and faith-promoting stories. They are the best of their kind and there are thousands of them.” (“The How and Why of Faith-promoting Stories”, New Era magazine, July 1978). Unfortunately, some of them, as another Mormon Apostle said well, only provide “…a kind of theological Twinkie—spiritually empty calories?” (Jeffrey R. Holland, “A Teacher Come from God”, Spring General Conference 1998). This series exposes the following ten “Twinkies”…

10 Myths That Mormonism Tells About Biblical Christianity

  1. Biblical Christianity apostatized.
  2. The Bible has been corrupted.
  3. Biblical Christians believe in cheap grace.
  4. Biblical Christians believe Christ prayed to Himself.
  5. The Biblical Christian God is a monster who sends good people to hell just because they never had a chance to hear the gospel.
  6. Biblical Christians worship the cross and the Bible.
  7. Biblical Christians have no priesthood.
  8. Biblical Christian Pastors and Apologists practice Priestcraft – they’re only in it for the money.
  9. Biblical Christians hate Mormons.
  10. Biblical Christianity is divided into 10,000+ sects, all believing in different paths to salvation.

… and replaces them with nourishing truth. Let’s talk about the one that’s bolded, shall we?

This meme illustrates how this myth is typically used in popular culture by Mormons.

The Myth
To illustrate how this myth is typically used by Latter-day Saints, I have included a well-known Mormon meme that pops up on Social Media from time to time. It shows how Latter-day Saints will often use critiques they believe to be silver bullets that debunk the doctrine of the Trinity when, in fact, they are nothing more than contrived strawman arguments. The myth being addressed here isn’t the only one of these, but it’s probably the most common.

So, where do Latter-day Saints get the incorrect idea that Biblical Christians who affirm the doctrine of the Trinity believe that Jesus was praying to himself when he lifted his voice in prayer to the Father?

Gordon B. Hinckley said the following:

“I am aware that Jesus said that they who had seen Him had seen the Father. Could not the same be said by many a son who resembles his parent?

When Jesus prayed to the Father, certainly He was not praying to Himself!

They are distinct beings, but they are one in purpose and effort. They are united as one in bringing to pass the grand, divine plan for the salvation and exaltation of the children of God.”
— Gordon B. Hinckley
(“The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” October 1986 General Conference, bolding added for emphasis)

LDS leaders often appeal to Joseph Smith’s First Vision as the reason they teach that the Father and the Son are distinct beings (see, for example, N. Eldon Tanner’s “The Contributions of the Prophet Joseph Smith”).

Some LDS leaders, Smith included, seek to make the case on biblical grounds:

“I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and 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?”
— Joseph Smith, Jr.
(quoted in Joseph Fielding Smith, ed. “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith” Section VI, 370, bolding added for emphasis)

More recently, Jeffrey R. Holland attempted to make the case that the Latter-day Saints hold to a more biblical view of the Godhead than Biblical Christians do:

“Indeed no less a source than the stalwart Harper’s Bible Dictionary records that “the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the [New Testament].”

So any criticism that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not hold the contemporary Christian view of God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost is not a comment about our commitment to Christ but rather a recognition (accurate, I might add) that our view of the Godhead breaks with post–New Testament Christian history and returns to the doctrine taught by Jesus Himself…

To whom was Jesus pleading so fervently all those years, including in such anguished cries as “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me” and “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me”? To acknowledge the scriptural evidence that otherwise perfectly united members of the Godhead are nevertheless separate and distinct beings is not to be guilty of polytheism; it is, rather, part of the great revelation Jesus came to deliver concerning the nature of divine beings.”
— Jeffrey R. Holland
(“The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent” in October 2007 General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, bolding added for emphasis, ellipses added for the sake of brevity)

Why It’s a Myth
Biblical Christians agree with Latter-day Saints that the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct persons. On biblical grounds, we disagree that this means they are three Gods. The three-in-one nature of God means that when the incarnate Son prayed to the Father, he was praying to a distinct person. Latter-day Saints fail to acknowledge that the three-ness of God in the doctrine of the Trinity is a true distinction of persons.

Holland wants to give the impression that the LDS view of a Godhead is the doctrine of God taught by Jesus and his apostles. In his attempt, he abused his source, making it look like it concedes more than it does.1 Biblical Christians affirm the doctrine of the Trinity primarily on the basis of the biblical data; not solely because of the creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople. It is precisely this point that Harper’s Bible Dictionary makes. Directly following the lone sentence Holland quoted from the concluding paragraph of the Trinity entry, one finds the following qualification:

“Nevertheless, the discussion above and especially the presence of trinitarian formulas in 2 Cor. 13:14 (which is strikingly early) and Matt. 28:19 indicate that the origin of this mode of thought may be found very early in Christian history.”
— Thomas R. W. Longstaff, Ph.D.
(“The Trinity” in “Harper’s Bible Dictionary”, Paul J. Achtemeier, ed. Harper & Row. San Francisco, 1985, pp. 1098-1099)

Joseph Smith’s “Sermon in the Grove” that I quoted above was delivered in Nauvoo, Illinois on June 16, 1844, just eleven days before he was killed. Later in the same sermon, he quoted from Jesus’ High Priestly Prayer in John 17, specifically vv. 9 and 11b. Then, after polemically mutilating the doctrine of the Trinity, Smith told his audience that he wanted to read them the text of John 17 for himself. He paraphrased verse 21, claiming that the Greek should be translated “agree” instead of “one.”

The Greek word translated “one” in this verse is from the root heis; the Greek word for the cardinal numeral “one.” In the 345 times that it is used in the Greek New Testament, it never means “agree” as Smith claimed (see Bill Mounce’s Biblical Greek Concordance and Dictionary). Of the seven times the English word “agree” is found in the KJV, it is most often translated from the Greek verb symphōneō (“agree”). Further, Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible does not change heis to “agree” at John 17:21, as Smith attempted to do in his sermon (see John 17:21 in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible)

Smith was not only wrong about the meaning of the Greek in John 17, but also wrong about the implication of that chapter for the doctrine of the Trinity. He didn’t take seriously the myriad biblical passages that declare that God is one.

Pietro Perugino, “The Baptism of Christ”, c.1482. Again, please note how this allegedly “apostate” artist has clearly depicted the three persons of the Trinity as distinct.

Hinckley gave a nod to a biblical passage that should give any Latter-day Saint pause (John 14:9), but he dismissed it too easily, given the ubiquity of New Testament passages declaring that the Father and the Son are one. Benjamin B. Warfield noted the following about the authors of the New Testament:

“[W]e cannot help perceiving with great clearness in the New Testament abundant evidence that its writers felt no incongruity whatever between their doctrine of the Trinity and the Old Testament conception of God. The New Testament writers certainly were not conscious of being “setters forth of strange gods.” To their own apprehension they worshipped and proclaimed just the God of Israel; and they laid no less stress than the Old Testament itself upon His unity (Jn 17:3; 1 Cor 8:4; 1 Tim 2:5). They do not, then, place two new gods by the side of Yahweh, as alike with Him to be served and worshipped; they conceive Yahweh as Himself at once Father, Son and Spirit. In presenting this one Yahweh as Father, Son and Spirit, they do not even betray any lurking feeling that they are making innovations.
[ . . . ]
It is not in a text here and there that the New Testament bears its testimony to the doctrine of the Trinity. The whole book is Trinitarian to the core; all its teaching is built on the assumption of the Trinity; and its allusions to the Trinity are frequent, cursory, easy and confident. It is with a view to the cursoriness of the allusions to it in the New Testament that it has been remarked that “the doctrine of the Trinity is not so much heard as overheard in the statements of Scripture.” It would be more exact to say that it is not so much inculcated as presupposed. The doctrine of the Trinity does not appear in the New Testament in the making, but as already made.”
— B.B. Warfield
(“Trinity” in “The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia”, edited by James Orr, 5:3,012–22. Chicago: The Howard-Severance Company, 1915)

Biblical Christians agree with Warfield that the doctrine of the Trinity is incipient in the Old Testament revelation, that it is clarified in the New Testament revelation, and that in “point of fact, the doctrine of the Trinity is purely a revealed doctrine” (Benjamin B. Warfield “Trinity”, ibid).

How It’s a Myth
The doctrine of the Trinity declares the clear biblical data that can be summarized in four statements:

  1. There is only one God.
  2. The Father of the Lord Jesus Christ is God.
  3. Jesus Christ, the Son, is God.
  4. The Holy Spirit is God.

Latter-day Saints who charge that Biblical Christians think Jesus prayed to himself fail to take into account the whole counsel of God (for an accessible overview see “The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity” by Robert Bowman, Jr.). The doctrine of the Trinity maintains both the one-ness and the three-ness of God, as revealed in the biblical record.

The criticism levied by Holland is that the doctrine postdates the New Testament. Specifically, Latter-day Saints argue that the doctrine amounts to the philosophies of men mingled with Scripture. Biblical Christians acknowledge that there are ways of explicating the doctrine of the Trinity that use nonbiblical words, but that the doctrine itself is thoroughly biblical. Warfield states the matter clearly:

“The term “Trinity” is not a Biblical term, and we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine that there is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence. A doctrine so defined can be spoken of as a Biblical doctrine only on the principle that the sense of Scripture is Scripture. And the definition of a Biblical doctrine in such un-Biblical language can be justified only on the principle that it is better to preserve the truth of Scripture than the words of Scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity lies in Scripture in solution; when it is crystallized from its solvent it does not cease to be Scriptural, but only comes into clearer view. Or, to speak without figure, the doctrine of the Trinity is given to us in Scripture, not in formulated definition, but in fragmentary allusions; when we assemble the disjecta membra into their organic unity, we are not passing from Scripture, but entering more thoroughly into the meaning of Scripture. We may state the doctrine in technical terms, supplied by philosophical reflection; but the doctrine stated is a genuinely Scriptural doctrine.”
— B.B. Warfield
(“Trinity”, Op Cit, bolding added for emphasis)

Biblical Christians fully acknowledge the one-ness and the three-ness of God as described in revelation.

The Doctrine of the Trinity and Mormon Godhead doctrine illustrated graphically.

Why It Matters
From my perspective as a former Latter-day Saint, the impulse on the part of Mormons to critique the Trinity is primarily the result of Smith’s innovative teachings – an anti-Trinity, if you will – of his most distinctive doctrines:

  1. God the Father has a body of flesh and bones (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22)
  2. Man was also, in the beginning, with God, and in essence “was not created or made, neither indeed can be” (Doctrine and Covenants 93:29).
  3. That humans must learn how to be gods [themselves], and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before [them] [ . . . ] (Joseph Smith, Jr. “King Follett Sermon”)

Smith himself argued the difficulty that his teachings posed when run up against the doctrine of the Trinity:

“Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God anyhow–three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. “Father, I pray not for the world, but I pray for them which thou hast given me.” “Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are.” All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God–he would be a giant or a monster.
— Joseph Smith, Jr.
(quoted in Joseph Fielding Smith, ed. “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith” Section VI, 372, bolding added for emphasis)

In this sermon, Smith argued essentially as Holland did. Namely, that Latter-day Saints affirm the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit “are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance [ . . . ]” (Jeffrey R. Holland, “The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent”). The key question here is this: Are the Father, Son, and Spirit unified in any way that is different than how believers are unified? Smith and his successors argue that the unity of both the Godhead and of humanity with the Godhead is solely that of will and purpose — not of substance. Biblical Christians answer in the affirmative that there is a difference between the unity of substance shared by the Godhead, and the unity of will and purpose that Jesus prayed his followers would have — with the Godhead and with each other.

In his great High Priestly Prayer, Jesus prayed, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent (John 17:3 KJV). Ambrose of Milan, one of the greatest theologians of the fourth century compared our unity with the Godhead’s unity:

“No separation, then, is to be made of the Word from God the Father, no separation in power, no separation in wisdom, by reason of the Unity of the Divine Substance. Again, God the Father is in the Son, as we ofttimes find it written, yet [He dwells in the Son] not as sanctifying one who lacks sanctification, nor as filling a void, for the power of God knows no void. Nor, again, is the power of the one increased by the power of the other, for there are not two powers, but one Power; nor does Godhead entertain Godhead, for there are not two Godheads, but one Godhead. We, contrariwise, shall be One in Christ through Power received [from another] and dwelling in us.

The letter [of the unity] is common, but the Substance of God and the substance of man are different. We shall be, the Father and the Son [already] are, one; we shall be one by grace, the Son is so by substance. Again, unity by conjunction is one thing, unity by nature another. Finally, observe what it is that Scripture hath already recorded: “That they may all be one, as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee.”

Mark now that He said not “Thou in us, and we in Thee,” but “Thou in Me, and I in Thee,” to place Himself apart from His creatures. Further He added: “that they also may be in Us,” in order to separate here His dignity and His Father’s from us, that our union in the Father and the Son may appear the issue, not of nature, but of grace, whilst with regard to the unity of the Father and the Son it may be believed that the Son has not received this by grace, but possesses by natural right of His Sonship.”
— Ambrose of Milan
(“On the Christian Faith” cited in “Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament” IVb John 11-21, Thomas C. Oden, ed. InterVarsity Press, Dowers Grove, IL 2007, pp. 256-57, bolding added for emphasis)

The Book of Mormon states that “God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people” (Mosiah 15:1). Biblical Christians can affirm this without qualification. The nature of the Son as fully God is critical to the efficacy of his sacrifice, as is the reverence for and the submission of his human nature to His Father, which he demonstrated in his prayers.

Summary and Conclusion
The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. Yet, there are not three Gods, but one true God. The Son did not pray to himself, but to His Father.

The Trinity Triangle: “We believe in the Triune God-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. One God, three Persons” This window uses the Latin Pater, Filius, and Spiritus Sanctus to name the persons in the Trinity. One God and Three Persons is a great mystery of the Church. The window explains that the Persons are not each other, but each is God (Deus).

NOTES
1 Here is what that entry in the 1985 Harper’s Bible Dictionary actually says in its full and complete context:

“Trinity, the, a term denoting the specifically Christian doctrine that God is a unity of three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The word itself does not occur in the Bible. It is generally acknowledged that the church father Tertullian (ca. a.d. 145-220) either coined the term or was the first to use it with reference to God. The explicit doctrine was thus formulated in the postbiblical period, although the early stages of its development can be seen in the NT . Attempts to trace the origins still earlier (to the ot literature) cannot be supported by historical-critical scholarship, and these attempts must be understood as retrospective interpretations of this earlier corpus of Scripture in the light of later theological developments.

For the purpose of analysis, three relevant categories of NT texts may be distinguished (although such sharp lines of demarcation should not be attributed to first-century Christianity): first are references to the incarnation, describing a particularly close relationship between Jesus and God. Although a number of passages make clear distinctions between God and Christ and therefore suggest the subordination of the Son to the Father (e.g., Rom. 8:31-34; 1 Cor. 11:3; 15:20-28; 2 Cor. 4:4-6), there are other texts in which the unity of the Father and the Son is stressed (e.g., Matt. 11:27; John 10:30; 14:9-11; 20:28; Col. 2:9; 1 John 5:20). This emphasis on the unity of the Father and the Son may be understood as a first step in the development of trinitarian thought.

Second are passages in which a similarly close relationship between Jesus and the Holy Spirit is depicted. In the ot, the Holy Spirit (i.e., the Spirit of God) is understood to be the agency of God’s power and presence with individuals and communities. In the NT , Jesus is understood to be the recipient of this Spirit in a unique manner (see esp. Luke 3:22, where the Holy Spirit descends in bodily form upon Jesus after his baptism), to be a mediator of the activity of the Spirit (Acts 2:33 and elsewhere), and even to be identified with the Spirit (Rom. 8:26-27, 34; John 14; cf. expressions such as ‘the Spirit of Christ,’ ‘the Spirit of the Lord,’ ‘the Spirit of Jesus,’ and Gal. 4:6, where God sends ‘the Spirit of his Son’). While one cannot use the creedal formulation that the Holy Spirit ‘proceeds from the Father and the Son’ in its later dogmatic sense, in the NT the Holy Spirit comes to represent both the presence and activity of God and the continuing presence of Jesus Christ in the church.

Finally there are passages in which all three persons of the Trinity are mentioned in the same context. The most important of these are the ‘Apostolic Benediction’ of 2 Cor. 13:14 (the earliest trinitarian formula known) and the baptismal formula of Matt. 28:19 (perhaps a development from the simpler formula reflected in Acts 2:38; 8:16; and elsewhere; see also 1 Cor. 12:4-6; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Pet. 1:2; Jude 20-21).

The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the NT . Nevertheless, the discussion above and especially the presence of trinitarian formulas in 2 Cor. 13:14 (which is strikingly early) and Matt. 28:19 indicate that the origin of this mode of thought may be found very early in Christian history.”
(Thomas R. W. Longstaff, Ph.D., “The Trinity” in “Harper’s Bible Dictionary”, Paul J. Achtemeier, ed. Harper & Row. San Francisco, 1985, pp. 1098-1099)

About the Author
Paul Nurnberg was born and raised in the Salt Lake Valley in Utah. He served a two-year proselytizing mission for the LDS Church in Hungary. After converting to Biblical Christianity, he studied at Cincinnati Christian University. He holds an M.Div. in Biblical Studies and a BBA from Thomas More University where he graduated summa cum laude. He is a member of Lakeside Christian Church in Kentucky, which belongs to the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, which has roots in the American Restoration Movement. He has enjoyed a long career in the health insurance industry, and since 2019 has produced the podcast, “Outer Brightness: From Mormon to Jesus.” He has been happily married to his best friend, Angela, for 22 years. They have five children and three dogs.