El Mormonismo y la naturaleza de Dios/Creencias tempranas

Tabla de Contenidos

Las primeras creencias mormonas con respecto a la naturaleza de Dios

Sumario: Los cristianos evangélicos tratan de mostrar que la idea mormona de la deificación es bíblica, no cristiano y falso. Parecen pensar que esta doctrina es la razón principal por la que los mormones rechazan la Psicología Trinidad, sin embargo, no existe "el concepto de la histórica iglesia de la Trinidad".

Saltar a subtema:

Pregunta: ¿Cuál es el concepto de la iglesia histórica de la Trinidad y por qué los mormones la rechazan?


It is important to remember that something like "the historic church's concept of the Trinity" does not exist

The following claim is made:

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. [1]

It is important to 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.

Mormons since Joseph Smith have stated that Father, Son and Holy Ghost cannot be numerically one, if Joseph saw two personages

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. Mormons 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.[2]

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).[3]

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

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. John 20:17

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. Acts 2:33

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? Matthew 27:46

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.[4]

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 critics 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 critic'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, critics 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. 1 John 3:2

What does the Protestant commentator Matthew Henry, quoted for his expertise on 2 Corinthians by critics, 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.[5]

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.[6]

And Origen is not alone in this solemn claim.[7] 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.[8]


Pregunta: ¿José Smith comenzó su carrera profética con un concepto "trinitaria" de Dios?

José y los primeros santos no eran trinitaria, y comprendidos encarnación de Dios y la identidad del Padre y del Hijo como seres separados muy temprano

Esta doctrina es evidente en el Libro de Mormón y en las cuentas de amistad y no de amistad primeros de estos asuntos de los Santos.

Estos textos demuestran que la supuesta "evidencia" de Joseph alterar su historia posterior es sólo en los ojos de los espectadores críticos. Por ejemplo, 1832 cuenta Primera Visión de José se centra en la remisión de sus pecados. Sin embargo, los críticos que desean afirmar que en 1832 José sólo tenía una idea vaga "trinitaria" de Dios (y por lo que iban a ver al Padre y al Hijo como un solo ser) han perdido pruebas vitales que debe ser considerado.[9]

Martin Harris recordó rechazando las ideas de Trinitarismo credo antes de la reunión José

Martín dictó un relato de su temprana búsqueda espiritual:

Hace 52 años me inspiré del Señor y enseñé del espíritu que no debía unirse a ninguna iglesia a pesar de que se solicitó el ansia por muchos de los sectarios. A mí me enseñaron que no podía caminar juntos salvo pacto. ¿Qué se puede no ser acordadas en está en la trinidad porque yo no lo encuentro en mi Biblia. Encontrar para mí y estoy dispuesto a recibirlo. Tres personas en un solo Dios. un personaje que no puedo reconocer de esto es anticristo porque donde está el Padre y hijo? Tengo más pruebas para demostrar nueve personas en la trinidad, entonces usted tiene tres .... otras sectas los episcopales también me cansado. Dicen que tres personas en un Dios sin partes del cuerpo o pasiones. Les dije que tal dios no tendría miedo de: que no podía agradar o ofenderlo. No me tengas miedo de batirse en duelo con un dios tal.[10]

Sería muy extraño para Martin sentir con tanta fuerza en este punto, sólo para abrazar las enseñanzas de José si José enseñó trinitarismo credo.

1829 - En el Libro de Mormón uno [Cristo], seguido por otros doce desciende de Dios para hablar con Lehi - por lo tanto, Jesús y el Padre están aquí, tanto por separado

El Libro de Mormón también comienza (1 Nefi 1:8-10) con la visión de Lehi de Dios en su trono. Un [Cristo], seguido de doce otros desciende de Dios para hablar con Lehi - por lo tanto, Jesús y el Padre están aquí, tanto por separado, y el papel de Cristo en dar instrucciones a la profeta, mientras que el padre mira y aprueba se sigue, como lo fue en el de José Primera Visión. Aquí también, Lehi se describe como rezando a "el Señor", y sin embargo tiene una visión de ambos, Dios Padre y de Cristo.

1830 - Libro de Moisés: "Y tengo una obra para ti, Moisés, hijo mío; y tú eres a semejanza de mi Unigénito"

Entre junio y octubre de 1830, Joseph había dictado su revisión (la "Traducción de José Smith") a Génesis.[11] The first chapter of Moses was dictated in June 1830 (about a month after the Church's reorganization), and began:

2 y [Moisés] vio a Dios cara a cara, y habló con él, y la gloria de Dios cubrió a Moisés; por lo tanto, Moisés pudo soportar su presencia.

3 Y Dios habló a Moisés, diciendo: He aquí, soy el Señor Dios Omnipotente, y Sin Fin es mi nombre; porque soy sin principio de días ni fin de años; ¿y no es esto sin fin?

4 He aquí, tú eres mi hijo; mira, pues, y te mostraré las obras de mis manos; pero no todas, porque mis obras son sin fin, y también mis palabras, porque jamás cesan.

5 Por consiguiente, ningún hombre puede contemplar todas mis obras sin ver toda mi gloria; y ningún hombre puede ver toda mi gloria y después permanecer en la carne sobre la tierra.

6 Y tengo una obra para ti, Moisés, hijo mío; y tú eres a semejanza de mi Unigénito; y mi Unigénito es y será el Salvador, porque es lleno de gracia y de verdad; pero aparte de mí no hay Dios, y para mí todas las cosas están presentes, porque todas las conozco. (Moisés 1:2-6)

Aquí ya, Dios se distingue del Unigénito, Moisés ve y habla con Dios cara a cara, y dice que Moisés fue creado "a semejanza de mi Unigénito".

De José rendido Génesis 1:26 como:

Y yo, Dios, dije a mi Unigénito, el cual fue conmigo desde el principio: Hagamos al hombre a nuestra imagen, conforme a nuestra semejanza; y fue hecho....Y yo, Dios, creé al hombre a mi propia imagen, a imagen de mi Unigénito lo creé; varón y hembra los creé. (Moisés 2:26-27.)

No puede haber ninguna duda de que José entendió "a mi propia imagen" para referirse a una semejanza física, en lugar de limitarse a una cuestión moral o intelectual. La Traducción de José Smith de Génesis 5:1-2 lee

El día en que Dios creó al hombre, a semejanza de Dios lo hizo; a imagen de su propio cuerpo, varón y hembra los creó (Moisés 6:8-9, énfasis añadido)

Así, en 1830 José enseñaba claramente una separación del Padre y del Hijo, e insistiendo en que ambos tenían algún tipo de forma física que podría ser copiado en la creación de la humanidad.

La madre de José, Lucy Mack Smith, también señaló que otras denominaciones cristianas tuvieron problema con la nueva Iglesia debido a sus enseñanzas acerca de Dios, y señaló que en el año 1830:

las diferentes denominaciones están muy opuestos a nosotros .... La metodistas también vino, y no rabia, porque ellos adoran a un Dios sin cuerpo ni partes, y ellos saben que nuestra fe entra en contacto con este principio.[12]

1831 - José "vio los cielos abiertos, y al Hijo del Hombre sentado a la diestra del Padre"

Escritores anti-mormones en 1831 señalaron que José dijo haber recibido "una comisión de Dios"; y los mormones afirmó que José "había visto a Dios con frecuencia y personalmente."[13] Que los enemigos de José sabían que afirmó haber "visto a Dios", indica que la doctrina de un Dios encarnado que se podía ver era conocida desde el principio.

John Whitmer también escribiría en 1831 de una visión disfrutado por Joseph en el que José vio a Cristo como separado del Padre, porque él "vio los cielos abiertos, y al Hijo del Hombre sentado a la diestra del Padre toma intercede por sus hermanos, los Santos ". (énfasis añadido) [14] De esta misma experiencia, Levi Hancock escribió:

José Smith luego salió al suelo y dijo: "Ahora veo a Dios, ya Jesucristo a su mano derecha , dejes que me maten, no me siento la muerte como lo estoy ahora." (énfasis añadido) [15]

1832 - En la cuenta 1832 de la Primera Visión, Jesús anuncia a José que él vendrá "vestidos de la gloria de mi Padre"

Uno debe primero observar que en la cuenta 1832 de la Primera Visión, Jesús anuncia a José que él vendrá "vestidos de la gloria de mi Padre." El Libro de Mormón (traducido tres años antes en 1829) también contiene numerosos pasajes que enseñan una separación física y la realización (aunque sólo sea en espíritu cuerpos, que claramente no son inmateriales, pero que tienen la forma, posición y forma) de los miembros de la Trinidad. (Vea:. 3 Nefi 11:, 1 Nefi 11:1-11, Éter 3:14-18)

Por otra parte, José Smith y Sidney Rigdon iban a recibir una revelación de los tres grados de gloria en el mismo año de 1832 la cuenta de José fue escrito; enseña claramente una separación física del Padre y del Hijo, dando testimonio de ver ambos. (Ver D&C 76:14,20–24.)[16]

1832–1833 - "José respondió que se trataba de Jesús, el Hijo de Dios, nuestro hermano mayor"

Dos de estrechos colaboradores de José reportaron sus propias visiones de Dios en el invierno de 1832–1833. Tanto decididamente no son trinitaria.

Zebedee Coltrin:

Joseph haber dado instrucciones, y en el ejercicio de la oración silenciosa, de rodillas ... un personaje caminaba por la habitación de este a oeste, y José le preguntó si le vimos. Lo vi y supongo que los otros lo hicieron, y José respondí que era Jesús, el Hijo de Dios, nuestro hermano mayor. Después José nos dijo que reanudar nuestra antigua posición en la oración, cosa que hicimos. Otra persona vino a través de; Estaba rodeado como con una llama de fuego. [I] experimenté una sensación de que podría destruir el tabernáculo, ya que era de fuego consumidor de gran brillo. El profeta José dijo que este era el Padre de nuestro Señor Jesucristo. Lo ví ....

Estaba rodeado al igual que con una llama de fuego, que era tan brillante que no pude descubrir nada más que su persona. Vi sus manos, sus piernas, sus pies, sus ojos, la nariz, la boca, la cabeza y el cuerpo en la forma y la forma de un hombre perfecto. Se sentó en una silla como un hombre se sentaba en una silla, pero este aspecto era tan grande y abrumadora que le parecía que debía fundir en su presencia, y la sensación era tan poderosa que emocionó a través de todo mi sistema y me sentí en la médula de mis huesos. El profeta José Smith dijo: "Hermanos, ahora están dispuestos a ser los apóstoles de Jesucristo, para que haya visto al Padre y al Hijo, y saben que existen y que son dos personajes diferentes.[17]

John Murdock:

Durante el invierno que abordé con [Bro [del ther] Joseph ... tuvimos una serie de reuniones de oración, en la cámara del Profeta .... En una de esas reuniones, el Profeta nos dijo si podíamos humillarnos delante de Dios, y exersise [sic] fe fuerte, deberíamos ver el rostro del Señor. Y eso del mediodía se abrieron las visiones de mi mente, y los ojos de mi entendimiento fueron iluminados, y vi la forma de un hombre, más precioso, el semblante de su rostro era sana, cabal y como el sol. Tenía el pelo de un color gris plateado brillante, acurrucada en una forma más majestuosa, sus ojos de un azul penetrante agudo, y la piel de su cuello una más hermoso blanco y estaba cubierto desde el cuello hasta los pies con un vestido suelto, de color blanco puro, más blanca que cualquier prenda que había visto nunca antes. Su aspecto era el más penetrante, y sin embargo, más hermosa. Y mientras yo estaba tratando de comprender todo el personaje de la cabeza a los pies se le escapó de mí, y la visión se cerró. Pero dejó en mi mente la impresión del amor, desde hace meses, que nunca me había pasado en ese grado.[18]

1834–1835 - Discursos sobre la Fe: "Hay , dos personajes que constituyen la gran inigualable, de gobierno, y el poder, supremo sobre todas las cosas"

En la Escuela de los Profetas, los hermanos se les enseñaba que

"Hay , dos personajes que constituyen la gran inigualable, de gobierno, y el poder, supremo sobre todas las cosas, por quien todo fue hecho en la creación, que se crean y hacen.... Son el Padre y el Hijo --el padre de ser un personaje de espíritu, la gloria y el poder, que posee toda perfección y plenitud, el Hijo, que estaba en el seno del Padre, un personaje del tabernáculo. (Clase 5:1–2)

En este caso, la separación del Padre y el Hijo sigue quedar claro.

1836 - "Ellos creen que el verdadero Dios es un ser material, compuesto de cuerpo y partes"

Un reportaje escéptico señaló:

Ellos creen que el verdadero Dios es un ser material, compuesto de cuerpo y partes; y que cuando el Creador formó a Adán a su imagen, lo hizo sobre el tamaño y la forma del mismo Dios ....[19]

Evidencia de que está ausente

Además de todas las pruebas no-trinitaria anteriormente, como Milton Backman ha señalado, hay una gran cantidad de evidencia que debemos encontrar, pero no lo hacen. Por ejemplo, nadie ha "localizado una publicación (por ejemplo, un artículo publicado en un periódico de la iglesia o la declaración de un folleto misionero) escrito por un Santo de los Últimos Días activa antes del martirio del Profeta que defiende el concepto de credo tradicional o popular de la Trinidad... ". Por otra parte, no hay referencias en los escritos críticos de la década de 1830 (incluyendo las declaraciones de los apóstatas) que José Smith introdujo a mediados de los años treinta la doctrina de la separación del Padre y del Hijo.[20]

Pregunta: ¿El Libro de Mormón enseña que Cristo y el Padre son un solo individuo expresándose en modos diferentes?


The Book of Mormon teaches that the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three persons, and is not consistent with either modalism/Sabellianism or standard Nicene trinitarianism

It is claimed that the Book of Mormon teaches Sabellianism, also called modalism, i.e., the belief that Christ and the Father are a single individual expressing himself in different modes.[21]

The Book of Mormon teaches that the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three persons, and is not consistent with either modalism/Sabellianism or standard Nicene trinitarianism.

How are the Father and the Son one?

  • "And now Father, I pray unto thee for them, and also for all those who shall believe on their words, that they may believe in me, that I may be in them as thou, Father, art in me, that we may be one."(3 Nephi 19:23)

3 Nephi clearly teaches that Jesus Christ and the Father are two persons:

  • "Behold, I am Jesus Christ the Son of God. I created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are. I was with the Father from the beginning. I am in the Father, and the Father in me; and in me hath the Father glorified his name." (3 Nephi 9:15)
  • Ironically, Nicene trinitarians use a similar scripture in the Bible (John 1:1), in favor of the doctrine of the Nicene trinity (God in three persons). Thus, such language cannot be used as clear evidence of modalism.

Other examples in scripture

  • "And for this cause ye shall have fulness of joy; and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one." (3 Nephi 28:10)

Jesus and the Spirit are two separate persons:

  • "But he [Jesus] truly gave unto them bread to eat, and also wine to drink. And he said unto them: He that eateth this bread eateth of my body to his soul; and he that drinketh of this wine drinketh of my blood to his soul; and his soul shall never hunger nor thirst, but shall be filled. But he truly gave unto them bread to eat, and also wine to drink. And he said unto them: He that eateth this bread eateth of my body to his soul; and he that drinketh of this wine drinketh of my blood to his soul; and his soul shall never hunger nor thirst, but shall be filled.Now, when the multitude had all eaten and drunk, behold, they were filled with the Spirit; and they did cry out with one voice, and gave glory to Jesus, whom they both saw and heard." (3 Nephi 20:7-9)
  • This scripture demonstrates that Mormon 7:7 and 2 Nephi 31:21 are not saying that Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are the same person.

Jesus Christ sits on the right hand of the Father:

  • "And may the grace of God the Father, whose throne is high in the heavens, and our Lord Jesus Christ, who sitteth on the right hand of his power, until all things shall become subject unto him, be, and abide with you forever. Amen."(Moroni 9:26)

Christ the Eternal Father is not the same as God the Father:

  • Christ is sometimes denominated "the Father because he was conceived by the power of God" (Mosiah 5:3)

Christ is the Father of our salvation:

  • "And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters. "(Mosiah 5:7)

Christ is often discussed as a clearly distinct individual from the Father

  • The Nephites who witnesses the risen Christ were first spoken to by God: "6 And behold, the third time they did understand the voice which they heard; and it said unto them: 7 Behold my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name—hear ye him." (3 Nephi 11:6-7) This was followed by Jesus' appearance, where he makes his own role and the Father's quite distinct: "I am Jesus Christ, whom the prophets testified shall come into the world. 11 And behold, I am the light and the life of the world; and I have drunk out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world, in the which I have suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning" (3 Nephi 11:10-11).
  • Jesus later also demonstrated their separate nature:
    • "...this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me" (3 Nephi 11:32).
    • "...not at any time hath the Father given me commandment that I should tell it unto your brethren at Jerusalem" (3 Nephi 15:14).
    • "Neither at any time hath the Father given me commandment that I should tell unto them concerning the other tribes of the house of Israel, whom the Father hath led away out of the land. 16 This much did the Father command me, that I should tell unto them...." (3 Nephi 15:15-16).
    • "I have received a commandment of the Father that I shall go unto them, and that they shall hear my voice, and shall be numbered among my sheep, that there may be one fold and one shepherd; therefore I go to show myself unto them" (3 Nephi 16:3).
    • "...thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you...." (3 Nephi 16:10).
    • "...now I go unto the Father, and also to show myself unto the lost tribes of Israel, for they are not lost unto the Father, for he knoweth whither he hath taken them" (3 Nephi 17:4).
    • "... I give unto you another commandment, and then I must go unto my Father that I may fulfil other commandments which he hath given me" (3 Nephi 18:27).
    • "And now I go unto the Father, because it is expedient that I should go unto the Father for your sakes" (3 Nephi 18:35).

Jesus' constant distinction between himself and the Father in both space (Jesus must leave the Nephites and go to the Father) and in giving instructions/commands (Jesus is commanded or not commanded by the Father repeatedly, and he obeys) are inconsistent with either Sabellianism or standard Nicene trinitarianism. Jesus and the Father are here clearly two distinct beings, though united in will and intent through divine love and obedience of the Son to the Father's will.

Other Book of Mormon examples

  • "I am mindful of you always in my prayers, continually praying unto God the Father in the name of his Holy Child, Jesus, that he, through his infinite goodness and grace, will keep you through the endurance of faith on his name to the end." (Moroni 8:3)
  • "Behold, they believed in Christ and worshiped the Father in his name, and also we worship the Father in his name. And for this intent we keep the law of Moses, it pointing our souls to him; and for this cause it is sanctified unto us for righteousness, even as it was accounted unto Abraham in the wilderness to be obedient unto the commands of God in offering up his son Isaac, which is a similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son." (Jacob 4:5)

It is a stretch to interpret the scriptures above in favor of Sabellianism. Therefore, verses in the Book of Mormon that might imply Sabellianism should likely be interpreted in a different sense, if this is plausible in the text. This is not difficult.


  1. Plantilla:CriticalWork:McKeeverJohnson:Mormonism 101
  2. Origen, "Commentary on the Gospel of John," A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Church, Book II, 2.
  3. "Modalism," Catholic Encyclopedia, [cita requerida]
  4. Augustine of Hippo, "On The Trinity, Book II, Chapter 9" A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Church, Vol. VI.
  5. "1 John," Matthew Henry's Commentary On The Whole Bible, Vol. VI, (Chester, 1721).
  6. Origen, "Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, Chapter I," The Ante-Nicene Church Fathers.
  7. St. Irenaeus, "Adv Haer III IV:38:4," The Ante-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."
  8. Plantilla:Book:Vajda:Partakers of the Divine Nature Vajda would go on later to join the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
  9. David L. Paulsen, "The Doctrine of Divine Embodiment: Restoration, Judeo-Christian, and Philosophical Perspectives," Brigham Young University Studies 35 no. 4 (1995–96), 6–94. (fuente principal)
  10. "Testimonio de Martin Harris Escrito por mi mano de la boca de Martin Harris," dictated to Edward Stevenson 4 September 1870, Edward Stevenson Collection, Miscellaneous Papers, LDS Church Archives; cited by Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 2:331.
  11. Kent P. Jackson, Robert J. Matthews, and Scott H. Faulring (editors), Joseph Smith's New Translation Of The Bible: Original Manuscripts (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 2004), 82.
  12. Lucy Mack Smith, The History of Joseph Smith By His Mother Lucy Mack Smith, edited by Preston Nibley, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1956), 161. AISN B000FH6N04.
  13. Plantilla:CriticalWork:Reflector:14 February 1832
  14. F. Mark McKiernan, An Early Latter-day Saint History: The Book of John Whitmer (Independence, MO.: Herald Publishing House 1980), 67, puntuacion corregida; citada en Robert L. Millet, "Joseph Smith and Modern Mormonism: Orthodoxy, Neoorthodoxy, Tension, and Tradition," Brigham Young University Studies 29 no. 3 (Summer 1989), 49–68.
  15. As cited in Millet, "Joseph Smith and Modern Mormonism," footnote 12.
  16. La corriente de D & C 76 visión se publicó por primera vez en Evening and Morning Star, Independence, Missouri, julio 1832.
  17. 3 October 1883, Salt Lake School of the Prophets Minute Book 1883 (Palm Desert, California: ULC Press, 1981), 39; cited in Paulsen, 34.
  18. "An Abridged Record of the Life of John Murdock Taken From His Journal by Himself," (typescript) Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, 13; cited in Paulsen, 35.
  19. Truman Coe, “Mormonism,” Cincinnati Journal and Western Luminary (25 August 1836). Reprinted from Ohio Observer, circa August 1836. off-site (Inglés) See Milton V. Backman, Jr., "Truman Coe’s 1836 Description of Mormonism," Brigham Young University Studies 17 no. 3 (Spring 1977), 347-55. See also Vogel, Early Mormon Documents 1:47.
  20. Milton V. Backman, Jr., "Joseph Smith's First Vision: Cornerstone of a Latter-day Faith," in To Be Learned is Good, If ..., ed. Robert L. Millet (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1987).; cited in Millet, "Joseph Smith and Modern Mormonism," 59.
  21. Origen Bachelor, Mormonism Exposed Internally and Externally (New York: Privately Published, 1838), 24. off-site (Inglés)