Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 3

This article is a draft. FairMormon editors are currently editing it. We welcome your suggestions on improving the content.

Chapter 2: Jesus

A FAIR Analysis of: Criticism of Mormonism/Books A work by author: Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson

Chapter 4: Preexistence and the Second Estate

Index of Claims in Chapter 3: The Trinity

Claim

• The authors quote John A. Widtsoe,

Several church councils, in which men fought for their own theories, foisted upon the Church the incomprehensible and unnatural doctrine of "one in three and three in one." ...This false doctrine, which has been nurtured through the centuries, is an excellent illustration of philosophical-theological error and nonsense.

Author's source(s)

• John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations 1:58

Response

• Let's look at the Widtsoe quote in context. As is always advisable when examining critical literature, it is best to fill in the portions omitted by the authors:

In numerous references in the Book of Mormon, the members of the Godhead stand out as distinct personages. The Bible, if read fully and intelligently, teaches that the Holy Trinity is composed of individual Gods.

The early Christian Church, on its way to apostasy, departed from this truth. Several church councils, in which men fought for their own theories, foisted upon the Church the incomprehensible and unnatural doctrine of "one in three and three in one." They twisted the doctrine of unity of nature and of purpose among the Trinity into an oneness of personality. They would quote Jesus' prayer to his Father, that his disciples "may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us." (John 17:21) Yet at the same time they ignored the clear evidence in the prayer that Jesus was on earth, at that time, speaking to a Being elsewhere; and the equally clear meaning of the prayer that he did not propose that his disciples should be fused into one personage, but that they should be of one mind with him and his Father. This false doctrine, which has been nurtured through the centuries, is an excellent illustration of philosophical-theological error and nonsense.

Latter-day Saints prefer to cling to the revealed word, and to read the word of God intelligently. Only that which we can understand can be used safely by mortal men; that which is incomprehensible is useless to us.

• What does this quote tell about LDS doctrine, and what about the rejection of the concept of the Trinity?

1. The "Trinity" was accepted as "Holy" by Widtsoe. It is a term that has revered place in LDS theology. It is said to be taught in the Bible. Therefore "Trinity" has not been attacked by the LDS, nor slandered, but the understanding of the Trinity is different, and those different understandings are attacked.
2. There are three distinct personages in the Trinity.
3. The three personages are one in nature and purpose.
4. The oneness of personality is rejected.

• So, basically it is modalism that is rejected, namely the same modalism that, though not official doctrine of Christian Churches, is believed by the majority of Christian believers.
• Further, just as the Eastern Orthodox Christians, the Psychological Trinity with its only distinction of personages lying in the different relations between the fathership, the sonship and the exhalation, is seen as a modalistic variance, and therefore rejected.
• If one wants to find fault with Widtsoe in this, it is only that he knew not enough about the Psychological Trinity to formulate his rejection more fittingly. He primarily attacks what he has been told about the Latin Trinity by its professors. And, as Trobisch said, most of those do not know what the traditional Trinity is about.
• A Protestant Christian might also find fault with the expression: "The Bible, if read fully and intelligently, teaches that the Holy Trinity is composed of individual Gods."
• Just as many traditional Christians err when saying "Father, Son and God are one person," the expression "the Trinity is composed of individual Gods" might be not entirely correct, but it is not wrong either.
• For a detailed response, see: Nature of God/Godhead and the Trinity

Claim

• The authors claim that "Mormon leaders" have "mocked and slandered" the concept of the Trinity despite it being "the heart and soul of Christian theology."

Author's source(s)

• Larry Dahl, "The Morning Breaks, The Shadows Flee," Ensign (April 1997) 14-15.
• Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 370, 372.
• Bruce R. McConkie, The Promised Messiah, vol. 1, 117-118.
• Gordon B. Hinckley, Church News, 4 July 1998, 2.

Response

• For a detailed response, see: Nature of God/Godhead and the Trinity

Claim

• The Bible "declares that there is only one God."

Author's source(s)

• 1 Chronicles 17꞉20
• Mark 12꞉29

Response

• For a detailed response, see: Nature of God/Polytheism

Claim

• The commandment "Thou shalt have not other gods before me" it interpreted by the authors to mean that "one is not to even believe that there are other gods."

Author's source(s)

• Exodus 20꞉3

Response

• For a detailed response, see: Nature of God/Polytheism

Claim

• The authors claim that "the Trinity was not an invention of the early church; rather, it was a definitive resposne designe dto explain the biblical position of the church" and that "[c]lear, definitive statements like the nicene and Athanasian Creeds were apparently not necessary until orthodoxy was challenged in later years."

Author's source(s)

• Irenaeus, n12
• n13

Response

Claim

• The authors state that LDS leaders deny the Trinity "because it cannot be understood," yet "Mormons believe in certain doctrines that they cannot fully understand."

Response

Claim

• The authors summarize this chapter as follows:

• Mormons believe that the Trinity was "an invention of the apostate church," while Christianity believes it is "a doctrine that came from biblical origins."
• Mormons believe that the Trinity "cannot be true because it cannot be understood," while Chritianity believes it "is one of the things about God that is not able to be understood by a finite, created mind."
• Mormons believe that the Trinity "cannot be true because the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are merely one in purpose," while Christianity believes it "is true because there is one God by nature who is evident in three persons."

Response

• What do most lay Christians believe in when talking about the Trinity? Clearly, many believe in some kind of modalism. Father, Son and Holy Ghost are not true personages, but only masks, modes of God's being . The one God reveals Himself to us in three modes: Father, Son and Holy Ghost. These believers often profess: "The Father, Son and Ghost are one person."
• Others rather firmly hold to the belief that the three are distinct persons, with three centers of willpower, each having a personal history. But they are, among those that believe in the Trinity, a minority. A Catholic religious teacher once explained:
  • Father <> Son;
  • Father <> Holy Ghost;
  • Son <> Holy Ghost.
  • Father = God;
  • Son = God;
  • Holy Ghost = God.
• That's the Trinity. It is mathematically wrong, and what makes it right is the mystery of faith. The informed reader will know that there are differences in beliefs about the Trinity. What Protestants and Catholics are proud to believe, namely the Psychological Trinity is an abomination for the second great old denomination of Christianity, namely Orthodoxy.

Claim

• In their hypothetical exchange between a "Christian" and a "Mormon," the authors state the following:

Christian: "Would you say that there was a God before Elohim (God the Father)? Mormon: Yes, that has been taught. Christian: Could we use the Bible to see if this is true? Mormon: Sure

Author's source(s)

• Isaiah 43꞉10

Response

• No Latter-day Saint would answer the question in the manner proposed by the authors.
• For a detailed response, see: Nature of God/Infinite regress of Gods

What the Early Christians believed, and how it fits with LDS thought

Let's look back in Christian history, to the Epistle to Diognetus. The author, usually called Mathetes, writes:

"This [messenger] He sent to them. Was it then, as one might conceive, for the purpose of exercising tyranny, or of inspiring fear and terror? By no means, but under the influence of clemency and meekness. As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him; as God He sent Him; as to men He sent Him; as a Saviour He sent Him, and as seeking to persuade, not to compel us; for violence has no place in the character of God."5

In the words above there is a clear definition of how the Son is God, and how the father: As a king sends his son, who is also a king. In this very old document there is no hint that would invalidate Widtsoe's words, in fact, they fit better than Psychological Trinity. Let's continue to Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with a Jew.

Then I replied, "I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things-above whom there is no other God-wishes to announce to them."6

So Justin calls Jesus "another God and Lord." If we then can talk of a "god distinct from the Father," are we not right in saying they are two gods?

The best explanation I found so far stems from Gregory of Nyssa in his essay "On Not Three Gods."7 He reasons that the unity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost lies primarily in their nature. Just as there is only one human nature of which every human being is a representative, there is only one divine nature of which every person of the Godhead is a representative.8 Widtsoe especially mentions that the three personages are united in nature. LDS doctrine is in harmony with this statement of Gregory. As Gregory's argument goes on, it is an abuse of language to talk about "three gods," as it is an abuse of language to talk about "many men." He admits that it is the way people talk, but insists that it is wrong. I think, if we may talk about "two men," it is reasonable to abuse language the same way saying "three gods." Now, most people would find it strange if we refused to talk about "two men," because this is the custom, and if we want to be understood, we better use language as everyone else does. Therefore it is justified from this to say, "In the holy Trinity there are three gods." Gregory admits the weakness of his argument and then finds a very strong reason why that which is OK for the lower nature of man is totally wrong for the higher nature of God: They work together, and they are revealed together (Wirk- und Offenbarungseinheit). It is important to note, that this is how the LDS view the unity of the Godhead, too: One in purpose, one in action, one in revelation. This, according to Gregory, is the major reason why we should say there is one God, and not three.9 This is the only real argument that Gregory can think of, why it is wrong to talk of three Gods: They do not work separated from each other.

In our modern industries another example springs to mind: The example of three workers in a plant. They work together on the same thing, let's say a lamp. They are workers, they work together, and the outcome is not three objects, but one. Applying Gregory's logic here would necessitate that we talk of "one worker in three persons." One might say, "But the workers work differently on the one object!" Well, this is surely also true for the example that Gregory gives. Read it in his own words:

But the same life is wrought in us by the Father, and prepared by the Son, and depends on the will of the Holy Spirit.10

Further one should think about the crucifixion of Christ. God the Son hangs on the cross. He does the greatest deed of God, the Atonement. He bears all our sins. He suffers. Surely He exercises His divine nature in divine grace. It is a divine operation for sure. Still he cries out "My God, my God, why hast thou left me?" If the Father left Him alone, then it is plain that Christ alone effected this divine action. He did it alone! The Father planned it, the Father sent the Son to do it, but it was the Son alone who did it.

So, from common usage and from Gregory's argument, and also from the writings of other Early Church Fathers we see that it is fully correct and Christian to talk about a plurality of gods in the Trinity.

Furthermore, the authors of Mormonism 101 seem to have perfected the art of reducing quotes to change their meaning. Had they provided the full context of the quotes by Widtsoe and Smith, the reader would have seen that they reject modalism and semi-modalism and focus on the three persons of the Trinity.

Both McConkie and Hinckley reject the notion of the numeric oneness of the three divine Persons. The thrust of the LDS argument against the modalism of lay Christians and the semi-modalism of Latin Trinity has not changed since Joseph Smith. One God, one Being, of one being

Let's have a look at President Hinckley's words, as quoted by McKeever and Johnson:

The world wrestles with the question of who God is, and in what form He is found. Some say that the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are one. I wonder how they ever arrive at that. How could Jesus have prayed to Himself when he uttered the Lord's Prayer? How could He have met with Himself when He was on the Mount of Transfiguration? No. He is a separate being.11

These words, to McKeever and Johnson, are antithetical to the biblical message. Let's take it one by one. What does President Hinckley reject in his message? It is the numerical oneness and identity of the Father with the Son and the Holy Ghost. Nothing more, nothing less. If we are to believe McKeever and Johnson, the doctrine of the Trinity is just that: In uttering the Lord's prayer, Jesus prayed to Himself, on the Mount of Transfiguration, He met Himself. To suggest otherwise is to reject the biblical message.

We have already seen that this is not what even the Psychological Trinity is about. McKeever and Johnson proved what Trobisch said: Most lay Christians don't understand the Trinity, and it takes more to get a glimpse of what the Trinity is about than just having a Masters in Divinity.

Claim

• The authors' main purpose seems to be to show that the LDS idea of deification is unbiblical, unchristian and untrue. They seem to think that this doctrine is the main reason why the LDS reject the Psychological Trinity. They write:

Why does the LDS Church reject the historic church's concept of the Trinity? Because not only does the Trinity remove any hope of a Mormon ever achieving godhood, but it also undermines Smith's first vision and subsequent teachings regarding a multiplicity of deities. If it can be demonstrated that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost/Spirit are God, and at the same time be shown that there exists only one God, it would definitely place the integrity of the first Mormon prophet on the line.

Response

• Before we start discussing the First Vision, deification and the integrity of the Prophet Joseph Smith, let's remember that something like "the historic church's concept of the Trinity" does not exist. The doctrine of the Trinity as taught by Catholics and mainstream Protestants is rejected by Eastern Orthodoxy, and vice versa. The Trinity doctrine of the second century A.D. differs from that of the third, and the fourth century developed even newer ideas. Aquinas' doctrine is different from that of Augustine, and Barth again developed a new doctrine of the Trinity. Modern understanding of key terms like homoousios, person, nature, substance and essence don't have much to do with what they meant in the fourth century A.D.
• Having said so much let me ask what the First Vision has to do with the Trinity? That's quite simple: Joseph Smith saw two personages, of which one was identified as the Father and the second as the Son. LDS since Joseph Smith have stated that Father, Son and Holy Ghost cannot be numerically one, if Joseph saw two personages. The authors believe that if the Trinity were right, then it would be impossible that Joseph Smith saw two personages, the Father and the Son. Here they clearly prove that they believe the Trinity teaches that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are numerically one, without any reservations. But, as hard as it is, that is not the doctrine of the Trinity. Just hear the words of Origen:

Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other.13

• In trying to fight "Mormon heresy," they themselves promote the heresy of modalism, namely:

The Monarchians properly so-called (Modalists) exaggerated the oneness of the Father and the Son so as to make them but one Person; thus the distinctions in the Holy Trinity are energies or modes, not Persons: God the Father appears on earth as Son; hence it seemed to their opponents that Monarchians made the Father suffer and die. In the West they were called Patripassians, whereas in the East they are usually called Sabellians. The first to visit Rome was probably Praxeas, who went on to Carthage some time before 206-208; but he was apparently not in reality a heresiarch, and the arguments refuted by Tertullian somewhat later in his book "Adversus Praxean" are doubtless those of the Roman Monarchians (see PRAXEAS).14

• Let's refute this from the Bible:

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God.15

• If the Father and the Son were numerically one, where would Jesus go?

Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.16

If Father and Son and Holy Ghost were numerically one, how could Jesus be at the right hand of God? How would He be exalted? And why would He need to have received a promise of the Holy Ghost? Let's look at Jesus' own words:

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?17

If the Father is the Son, then how could he have forsaken himself?

And last but not least, let me quote Augustine of Hippo, final framer of the Latin doctrine of the Trinity:

But under the oak at Mamre he saw three men, whom he invited, and hospitably received, and ministered to them as they feasted. Yet Scripture at the beginning of that narrative does not say, three men appeared to him, but, "The Lord appeared to him." And then, setting forth in due order after what manner the Lord appeared to him, it has added the account of the three men, whom Abraham invites to his hospitality in the plural number, and afterwards speaks to them in the singular number as one; and as one He promises him a son by Sara, viz. the one whom the Scripture calls Lord, as in the beginning of the same narrative, "The Lord," it says, "appeared to Abraham." He invites them then, and washes their feet, and leads them forth at their departure, as though they were men; but he speaks as with the Lord God, whether when a son is promised to him, or when the destruction is shown to him that was impending over Sodom.18

So even he, who like no other changed how a majority of Christians thinks of God, who, like none before him, elevated the oneness of God to a level where Orthodoxy felt it was only a semi-Sabellianistic distortion of the truth, he himself did not have a problem to conclude that God is numerically three persons, who can be seen in a vision or can visit a human being in the outer form of three male human beings simultaneously. So, if McKeever and Johnson think the First Vision is crucial in showing Joseph's "error," we have to conclude that they are, in fact, even more modalistic than Augustine of Hippo. And more modalistic than "semi-modalistic" can only be fully modalistic. What Does Deification (Theosis) Have To Do With It?

What does the doctrine of eternal progress, or deification have to do with the Trinity? It's quite easy to understand McKeever and Johnson's false reasoning in that case, too: If the Trinity does not consist of multiple personages, which deserve to be called God, then how could we ever hope to become gods ourselves?

First of all, as we have shown so far, the premise is false: The Trinity, even the semi-Sabellianistic Psychological Trinity affirms three personages. And second, McKeever and Johnson fail to understand that deification, or theosis, was the main doctrine of Christianity during the first centuries, it is still firmly taught in Orthodoxy, and even Catholicism has retained some belief in deification.

Let's see what the Bible has to say about the concept of deification:

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.19

What does the Protestant commentator Matthew Henry, quoted for his expertise on 2 Corinthians by McKeever and Johnson in another chapter, have to say about this verse?

The sons of God will be known and be made manifest by their likeness to their head: They shall be like him-like him in honour, and power, and glory. Their vile bodies shall be made like his glorious body; they shall be filled with life, light, and bliss from him.20

Wow! To be like God in honour, power and glory is a wonderful thing. That means to be placed above the angels. To be above anything, besides God, who will still be the "God of Gods." But it is not only Henry who teaches thus, and others have been far more blunt about our eternal destiny. Read the following quotes:

God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know Thee the only true God; "but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.21

And Origen is not alone in this solemn claim.22 Jordan Vajda, OP, a Dominican Catholic priest ("OP" stands for Ordo Praedicatorum-Order of Preachers-the official title of the Dominican order) even writes:

It seems that if one's soteriology cannot accommodate a doctrine of human divinization, then it has at least implicitly, if not explicitly, rejected the heritage of the early Christian church and departed from the faith of first millennium Christianity. However, if that is the case, those who would espouse such a soteriology also believe, in fact, that Christianity, from about the second century on, has apostatized and "gotten it wrong" on this core issue of human salvation. Thus, ironically, those who would excoriate Mormons for believing in the doctrine of exaltation actually agree with them that the early church experienced a "great apostasy" on fundamental doctrinal questions. And the supreme irony is that such persons should probably investigate the claims of the LDS Church, which proclaims that within itself is to be found the "restoration of all things.23

Claim

• The authors by their rejection of deification have-according to Vajda-proven the LDS teaching about the "Great Apostasy." Further, the above proves that either McKeever and Johnson are ignorant of the fully Christian doctrine of deification, or they ignore it wilfully to deceive their readers. Either way, they are dead wrong in the following assumption:

Why does the LDS Church reject the historic church's concept of the Trinity? Because not only does the Trinity remove any hope of a Mormon ever achieving godhood, but it also undermines Smith's first vision and subsequent teachings regarding a multiplicity of deities. If it can be demonstrated that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost/Spirit are God, and at the same time be shown that there exists only one God, it would definitely place the integrity of the first Mormon prophet on the line.24

Response

• Neither the hope of achieving godhood, nor the First Vision are undermined by the Latin or the Greek Trinity. The most important argument Athanasius provided against the Arian teaching that Jesus was not really God was, "If he was not really god, how could he MAKE us gods? How should he be able to make us, what he himself is not?"25
• It was the well-established doctrine of deification that made clear that Jesus was deus verus de deo vero (true god from true God), as the Nicene Creed states, and if not for deification, our Protestant brothers could well believe in Arianism now, because without that argument Athanasius may have lost the dispute. To claim that the LDS dislike the Latin and the Greek Trinity because of deification doctrine shows an absolute ignorance of the real facts of history and theology.

Monotheism, Henotheism, and Polytheism

Again we are faced with extra-biblical terms. The simple explanations of those words are:

Monotheism: There is only one God.

Henotheism: Though there is more than one God, one chooses to worship only one.

Polytheism: There is more than one God, and they are all worshipped.

Some try to assert that Monotheism is written in the Bible with gigantic letters. As proof texts they quote passages like the Sh'ma Yisrael.26 The problem, however, is that this central proof-text of monotheism cannot only be translated as it is in the King James version (Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD), but also as "Hear, O Israel: The LORD [is] our God, the LORD alone."27 This is not exactly monotheistic, isn't it?

Let's continue with the verses brought up by McKeever and Johnson, the next one coming from the New Testament. It's the discourse about the First Commandment.28 Jesus answers by quoting the "Sh'ma Yisrael" which we have already discussed above, and then deduces from this the love of God and the love of the neighbour.29 The scribe accepted the deduction by saying, "Well, Master, thou hast said the truth," and he strengthened Jesus' argument, alluding to Deuteronomy 4:35-40, where Moses argued that because God loved the forefathers of the Israelites, He has chosen the Israelites to be His people, and hear and follow His commandments. Deuteronomy 4:3530 tells us that there are no Gods beside31 the God of Israel. That is, it is the God of Israel to which our undivided love and worship must be directed. It is not the thrust of this verse, as McKeever and Johnson claim, to cement monotheism-which it doesn't. "Besides" means just that: On the same level, as an equal.

Claim

• The authors continue quoting scriptures:

This certainly is a superficial interpretation, for many passages show this oneness far surpasses the mere notion of agreement. For example, the Ten Commandments strongly warn, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Exod. 20:3). The Mormon may insist his worship does not extend beyond the one he calls Elohim, but context demands that this must also involve his faith (he is not to even believe there are other Gods).

Response

• Well, in fact there's nothing in Exodus 20 that claims that we should not believe that there are other gods. If that were the case, Deuteronomy 10:17, Joshua 22:22, Psalms 136:2, and Daniel 2:47 and 11:36 would be against that commandment. Or would McKeever and Johnson rather have us believe that these passages refer to God as "God of Idols," instead of "God of Gods?"

Claim

• This leads us to the next interesting claim:

The Book of Isaiah offers perhaps more verses in defence of monotheism than any other. Throughout chapters 43 through 45, this book emphasizes the existence of one God and one God only (see Isa. 43: 10; 44:6; 45:5-6, 14, 21-22; 46:9). It is difficult to interpret passages such as Isaiah 43: 10 as merely referring to several Gods being one in purpose since it rejects the possibility of other gods existing either before or after the one true God. One would think that even the God of Mormonism would be aware of the many gods who allegedly exist with him, or for that matter, the god that begat his mortal body. Yet Isaiah 44:8 tells us that the God of the Bible doesn't even know of other gods! Are we to believe in the context of Mormonism that Joseph Smith's God can't remember who his own father was?

Response

• That's a really interesting question, but let's redirect it back to the authors: If the Father and the Son are one being, how can Jesus say:

Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God.34

• Jesus really used unambiguous words to proclaim that God not only was God to his disciples, but Jesus' God, too.
• Let's continue to Paul. Galatians 3:19-20 talks about mediatorship and then tells us "Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one."35 So, if there's a mediator, there have to be two parties, and the mediator is not party himself. Hebrews 9:15 calls Jesus the mediator of the New Covenant. Those two scriptures form a nice contradiction to McKeever and Johnson's oneness claims, which I don't think they can resolve. Every scripture they threw at us brings them into either rejecting their own position or the New Testament testimony of Christ.
• How, though, can the LDS reconcile their view with those scriptures in Isaiah? That's easy; you just have to take a look at Isaiah 44:6-8:

 ^{[needs work]}

Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God.

And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? And the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them.

Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared [it]? ye [are] even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, [there is] no God; I know not [any].

• The question here is: Who has revealed himself to the world? Which God has ever communicated with man? Who has revealed the future? Who but He who brought up this future? The answer is: None. There is no one, and neither the Israelites nor God knows any other god that had revealed himself but the God of Israel. Again, this says nothing about monotheism. It just talks about revelation, and wholeheartedly we recognize Isaiah's argument as valid.

Claim

• Next, the authors try to beat us over the head with a quote from the Book of Mormon:

And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God? And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God. Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he answered, No.36

• Let's understand the situation first. Zeezrom is a lawyer opposed to the Gospel. He tries to take Amulek into cross-examination. Every word Amulek says he tries to use against him. Would Zeezrom have understood a complex answer? Or would he have made a fool of Amulek? Would he have trampeled upon sacred beliefs? Anybody who has read that passage in Alma knows for sure that this was what Zeezrom intended. In giving a simple answer, even if it is not exact, Alma does not throw his pearls before the swine. There is, says Amulek, just one God. There's one, who is-as Origen puts it-Autotheos, God out of Himself. The Son is God by the will and power of the Father, and so is the Holy Ghost. He is the one that Christ references as "the only true God"37 and "my God."38
• But what about monotheism? It is not in the Bible, it is not in the Book of Mormon, nor in the early Church Fathers. Why should we believe it? Does that mean that the LDS are Polytheists? Certainly not, because we only worship the Father in the name of the Son, through the Holy Ghost.39
• Are the LDS Henotheists? Again, certainly not. Nobody on this world or in this universe may choose whom to worship if he wants life eternal. To look up to any other being than Jesus Christ to save us, or to pray to anybody else but the Father in the name of the Son and through the Holy Ghost, is the road to eternal death. There is no way but Jesus, no God but the Father, who leads us, who guides us, who saves us through Christ. Thus Henotheism is a weak term that does not describe our faith sufficiently.
• We are left to Monotheism as the concept that comes closest to our beliefs, though it is nevertheless inadequate a term, and with the Bible proclaim that YHVH is the God of gods, the King of kings, the Lord of lords.

Response
 FAIR WIKI EDITORS: Check sources

Endnotes

5 Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, "To Diognetus," The Anti-Nicene Church Fathers (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1867), Chapter VII. This beautiful little apology for Christianity is cited by no ancient or medieval writer, and came down to us in a single manuscript, which perished in the siege of Strasburg (1870). The identification of Diognetus with the teacher of Marcus Aurelius, who bore the same name, is at most plausible. The author's name is unknown, and the date is anywhere between the Apostles and the age of Constantine. It was clearly composed during a severe persecution. The manuscript attributed it with other writings to Justin Martyr; but that earnest philosopher and hasty writer was quite incapable of the restrained eloquence, the smooth flow of thought, the limpid clearness of expression, which mark this epistle as one of the most perfect compositions of antiquity. The author was possibly a catechumen of St. Paul or of one of the apostle's associates. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05008b.htm)

6 Roberts and Donaldson, "Dialogue of Justin with Trypho," The Anti-Nicene Church Fathers, Chapter LVI.

7 Gregory of Nyssa, "On 'Not three Gods'," A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Church, Volume V, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (New York: Publisher Unknown, 1887).

8 Ibid., by Gregory of Nyssa: "What, then, is the reason that when we count one by one those who are exhibited to us in one nature, we ordinarily name them in the plural and speak of 'so many men,' instead of calling them all one: while in the case of the Divine nature our doctrinal definition rejects the plurality of Gods, at once enumerating the Persons, and at the same time not admitting the plural signification?

[...]

"We say, then, to begin with, that the practice of calling those who are not divided in nature by the very name of their common nature in the plural, and saying they are 'many men,' is a customary abuse of language, and that it would be much the same thing to say they are 'many human natures.'

[...]

"Thus it would be much better to correct our erroneous habit, so as no longer to extend to a plurality the name of the nature, than by our bondage to habit to transfer to our statements concerning God the error which exists in the above case. But since the correction of the habit is impracticable (for how could you persuade any one not to speak of those who are exhibited in the same nature as 'many men?'-indeed, in every case habit is a thing hard to change), we are not so far wrong in not going contrary to the prevailing habit in the case of the lower nature, since no harm results from the mistaken use of the name: but in the case of the statement concerning the Divine nature the various use of terms is no longer so free from danger: for that which is of small account is in these subjects no longer a small matter.

[...]

"If, indeed, Godhead were an appellation of nature, it would be more proper, according to the argument laid down, to include the Three Persons in the singular number, and to speak of 'One God,' by reason of the inseparability and indivisibility of the nature: but since it has been established by what has been said, that the term 'Godhead' is significant of operation, and not of nature, the argument from what has been advanced seems to turn to the contrary conclusion, that we ought therefore all the more to call those 'three Gods' who are contemplated in the same operation, as they say that one would speak of 'three philosophers' or 'orators,' or any other name derived from a business when those who take part in the same business are more than one."

9 Gregory states: "For instance, supposing the case of several rhetoricians, their pursuit, being one, has the same name in the numerous cases: but each of those who follow it works by himself, this one pleading on his own account, and that on his own account. Thus, since among men the action of each in the same pursuits is discriminated, they are properly called many, since each of them is separated from the others within his own environment, according to the special character of his operation. But in the case of the Divine nature we do not similarly learn that the Father does anything by Himself in which the Son does not work conjointly, or again that the Son has any special operation apart from the Holy Spirit; but every operation which extends from God to the Creation, and is named according to our variable conceptions of it, has its origin from the Father, and proceeds through the Son, and is perfected in the Holy Spirit. For this reason the name derived from the operation is not divided with regard to the number of those who fulfil it, because the action of each concerning anything is not separate and peculiar, but whatever comes to pass, in reference either to the acts of His providence for us, or to the government and constitution of the universe, comes to pass by the action of the Three, yet what does come to pass is not three things. We may understand the meaning of this from one single instance. From Him, I say, Who is the chief source of gifts, all things which have shared in this grace have obtained their life. When we inquire, then, whence this good gift came to us, we find by the guidance of the Scriptures that it was from the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Yet although we set forth Three Persons and three names, we do not consider that we have had bestowed upon us three lives, one from each Person separately; but the same life is wrought in us by the Father, and prepared by the Son, and depends on the will of the Holy Spirit. Since then the Holy Trinity fulfils every operation in a manner similar to that of which I have spoken, not by separate action according to the number of the Persons, but so that there is one motion and disposition of the good will which is communicated from the Father through the Son to the Spirit (for as we do not call those whose operation gives one life three Givers of life, neither do we call those who are contemplated in one goodness three Good beings, nor speak of them in the plural by any of their other attributes); so neither can we call those who exercise this Divine and superintending power and operation towards ourselves and all creation, conjointly and inseparably, by their mutual action, three Gods."

10 Gregory of Nyssa, "On 'Not three Gods'."

11 Church News, 4 July 1998, 2, quoted in Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), 52.

13 Origen, "Commentary on the Gospel of John," A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Church, Book II, 2.

14 "Modalism," Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10448a.htm

15 John 20:17.

16 Acts 2:33.

17 Matthew 27:46.

18 Augustine of Hippo, "On The Trinity, Book II, Chapter 9" A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Church, Vol. VI.

19 1 John 3:2.

20 "1 John," Matthew Henry's Commentary On The Whole Bible, Vol. VI, (Chester, 1721), as found at http://www.biblestudyguide.org/comment/matthew-henry/mh-complete/MHC00000.HTM

21 Origen, "Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, Chapter I," The Anti-Nicene Church Fathers.

22 St. Irenaeus, "Adv Haer III IV:38:4," The Anti-Nicene Church Fathers: "We are not made gods from the beginning; first we are mere humans, then we become gods." St. Maximus the Confessor : "Let us become the image of the one whole God, bearing nothing earthly in ourselves, so that we may consort with God and become gods, receiving from God our existence as gods." St. Athanasius, De inc.: "For the Son of God became man, that we might become God." St. Augustine: "He has called men gods that are deified of His Grace, not born of His Substance." St. Irenaeus, Adv Haer III: "The Word became flesh and the Son of God became the Son of Man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." St. Augustine of Hippo: "Let us applaud and give thanks that we have become not only Christians but Christ himself. Do you understand, my brothers, the grace that God our head has given us? Be filled with wonder and joy--we have become veritable Christs!" St. Thomas Aquinas: "The Only-begotten Son of God, wanting us to be partakers of his divinity, assumed our human nature so that, having become man, he might make men gods." St Basil the Great: "The highest of all things desired is to become God."

23 Jordan Vajda, "'Partakers of the Divine Nature': A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization" (master's thesis, Graduate Theological Union, 1998), 14

25 Hans Küng, "Das Christentum, Wesen und Geschichte," C.II.6 (München: R. Piper GmbH & Co. KG, 1994): "Ja, wie soll die Erlösung des Menschen zu göttlichem Leben und die Gewissheit des Heils in Jesus gewährleistet sein, wenn Jesus nur ein Geschöpf [..] war? [..] Durch die Menschwerdung Gottes und die Gottwerdung des Menschen unterschied sich für Athanasios das Christentum sowohl vom Judentum wie vom Heidentum."

26 Deuteronomy 6:4.

27 In fact, Martin Luther and the NRSV translate it that way.

28 Please keep in mind that this was the question at hand, and Jesus only quoted Deuteronomy 6:4 to deduce the most important commandment from that.

29 It could even be reasoned that Jesus' argument about "loving thy neighbour" also drew authority from the Sh'ma, like He was saying "If there is but one God to whom we are indebted for our lives and all we have, how could we not love Him who chose us before all nations? And if we love God, how could we not love everyone who has been created in the form and image of God?" Matthew Henry, in his commentary, agrees with this explanation.

30 Like Mark 12:32 in the NASB and Darby's translation.

31 The Latin Vulgate even uses the word "praeter," which means "before."

34 John 20:17.

35 NASB. Other translations: Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one. (NKJV) Now an intermediary implies more than one; but God is one. (RSV) Now a mediator is not a [mediator] of one; but God is one. (Webster's).

36 Alma 11:26-29.

37 John 17:3.

38 John 20:17.

39 As Hans Küng puts it, this is the only requirement for true Christianity, not the Trinity speculation of the Latin Church Fathers, nor that of later Greek Church Fathers.