Bible, Christianity, Henotheism, Is Mormonism Christian, Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith, Latter-day Saints, LDS, Modalism, Mormonism, orthodoxy, Plurality of gods, Richard Bushman, Robert MIllet, The nature of God, Trinitariansim, Trinity, Wayne Grudem, Willaim Lane Craig
On April 7th1844, the Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith delivered what former Brigham Young University professor, Richard Bushman, called “one of the most startling and heterodox [sermons] of the nineteenth century.” The sermon was delivered in honor of a late Mormon elder King Follet, who had died the previous month. The King Follett Discourse, along with many other authoritative Latter-day Saint (LDS) teachings, “[make] clear how far Smith had departed from conventional Christian theology.” Still, the Prophet himself claimed, “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God…” This is true. The character and the nature of God are paramount to any worldview or belief system. But why are Smith’s teachings considered startling and heterodox? Is the God described by Joseph Smith not the same as the God of the Bible? Simply put, no. An analysis of God’s nature in both Mormonism and classical Christianity reveals contradictory views, which cannot possibly be considered identical.
Consequently, it will be our goal to examine the nature of God in Mormonism and classical Christianity. My task will be to illuminate three specific areas. First, a Biblical defense of Trinitarian monotheism will be presented then contrasted with the LDS belief in a plurality of Gods. Second, the LDS teaching that God has a body of flesh and bones will be measured up to the Biblical teaching of God being incorporeal. Finally, God’s nature in relation to creation will be examined. The Biblical teaching is that God created entire universe out of complete nothingness; yet the Mormon view presents God only as the organizer of existing matter; not the ultimate creator. These three teachings alone, present contradictory metaphysical views of the nature of God. Thus, after the dust has settled, it will be clear that the Mormon and classical Christian view of God are striking different. So much so, that in the end it will be apparent that Latter-day Saints and traditional Christians do not worship the same God.
To begin, let us look at the classical Christian doctrine of God’s nature; the Trinity. According to Wayne Grudem, “we may define the doctrine of the Trinity as follows: God eternally exists as three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and each person is fully God, and there is one God.” This doctrine is frequently misunderstood and is therefore often criticized by those outside orthodox Christian denominations. For example, one common objection claims that the Trinity is not God’s true nature because the word Trinity is not found in the Bible. While technically correct that the word Trinity is absent, nothing is proven by this observation. The fact that the word Trinity does not appear in the Bible is irrelevant. Traditional Christianity has not come to the conclusion that God is a triune because the word is found in the Scriptures. Rather, the belief comes from a summary of the teachings in the Bible that there is one God, who is three distinct persons, who are all fully God. Likewise, the word incarnation is not found in the Bible, nevertheless, one can believe the concept because the notion that God became flesh is clearly taught in the first chapter of the Gospel of John.
This doctrine is complex and thus must be carefully explained. If misunderstood, one could think the Trinity is logically incoherent claiming three cannot be one. Or one could err like Arius of Alexandria, who taught that the Son and the Holy Spirit have not always existed and were not of the same nature as the Father. Just as easily, one could fall into Modalism. Modalism asserts that God is only one person, who simply appears to the viewer in distinct modes rather than persons. Nevertheless, Arianism and Modalism were both condemned as heresy during the 4th century. Properly understanding the doctrine of the Trinity matters; for if one blunders on the character and nature of God, they could be in danger of worshiping false or non-existent gods.
Although the doctrine of the Trinity is complicated, the solid Biblical foundation is undeniable. Space does not allow for an adequate defense of the Trinity, nevertheless a number of Biblical references revealing three essential truths will be reviewed: First, God is three persons, second each person is fully God and third there is only one God.
Trinitarian doctrine imparts that God’s nature is made up of three persons. Meaning, the Father is neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. The Bible naturally teaches this concept. John 3:17 establishes the distinction between the Father and Son, “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.” Later, in John 14:26 Jesus says, “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.” These two verses alone plainly show the Father is distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father and the Son. Therefore, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all distinct persons.
Demonstrating each person—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—is divine flows effortlessly the Bible. First, the Father’s divinity is validated in 1 Peter 1:2a which reads, “according to the foreknowledge of God the Father…” Second, Jesus was called “My Lord and my God” by Thomas in John 20:28 and in Colossians 2:9 it says that “in [Jesus] all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form…” Third, the person of the Holy Spirit is equally treated as God. For example, in Acts 5:3, Peter rebuked Ananias for lying to the Holy Spirit. Later in verse 4, it is explained that Ananias did not lie “to men but to God.” Therefore, the Biblical data shows each person—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—is considered God.
Christian theism believes while there are three persons who are called God, there is only one God. This belief makes orthodox Christianity a monotheistic religion. Monotheism can be defined as “the belief in only one God.” Deuteronomy 6:4 is a classic verse used to explain the Christian belief in only one God: “Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!” The New Testament similarly teaches there is only one God. Take for example what Paul tells us in 1 Timothy 2:5a: “For there is one God…” Regardless if one looks in the Old Testament or the New, unmistakably the Biblically teaching is monotheism. Thus, a proper understanding of the Biblical data teaches there is only one God, the nature of this God is comprised of three persons and each of these persons is divine.
But, the question remains: Is the Trinitarian view of God the teaching of Mormonism? At first glace, one might say yes. One could point to where Joseph Smith taught, “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” This statement certainly resembles the orthodox teaching of the Trinity. Nevertheless, Latter-day Saints reject the notion of the Trinity. Take for example Joseph Smith’s assessment:
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…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.
Evidently Smith is, at least implicitly, denying Trinitarianism. Calling the doctrine curious, strange and monstrous certainly is not a ringing endorsement. Still, when Smith’s teachings are investigated further, it is plain to see that explicit denials of the Trinitarianism surface.
Joseph Smith’s taught of a “plurality of Gods.” This surely could be the clearest example of his rejection of Trinitarianism. “Authoritative Mormon texts such as the Book of Abraham and Joseph Smith’s later sermons,” explains Dr. Carl Mosser, a professor of Biblical Studies at Eastern University, “explicitly teach that many Gods exist.” Not only do they exist but Mosser contends Smith taught “These Gods rule over other worlds and are not objections of worship for the inhabitants of this world.” In Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Smith defends his conviction in the belief of multiple Gods. Contemporaries of Smith were concerned with his heterodox teachings regarding the nature of God. So, Smith looked to defend teachings against what he called “some malicious and corrupt men” who had “apostatized from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” Smith’s goal was “to take up [the teaching of a plurality Gods] and lay it clearly before the people, and show [his] faith is in relation to this interesting matter.” Joseph Smith explains,
I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ is 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…we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural, and who can contradict it?
Smith goes on to say that the “doctrine of a plurality of Gods is as prominent in the Bible as any other doctrine” and that it is “all over the face of the Bible.” However, as we have discovered earlier, the Bible actually teaches the nature of God is monotheistic. Clearly, by no stretch of the imagination, could one consider Joseph Smith a Trinitarian monotheist.
But, how then should the fundamental teachings Smith be categorized? On the surface, it may be natural to say Mormons are polytheists. Polytheism is “the worldview that many finite gods exist in the world.” However, given what Smith later clarified to his followers, a more precise characterization is helpful. Smith taught that man ought to be concerned with only the God that is “pertaining to us.” In fact, Smith said “there are Gods many and Lords many, but to us only one, and we are to be in subjection to that one.” Smith also imparted that “the heads of the Gods” at some point, “appointed one God for us” whom the Latter-day Saints are subject to. This resembles henotheism, which is sort of polytheism that believes there is an ultimate god ruling over many gods; or simply a belief in one god, but also acknowledging the existence of the multiple deities. Properly characterized, the Mormon view of God is henotheistic. Undoubtedly, Smith himself was not a Trinitarian monotheist nor did he teach it.
Yet, it should be noted that some modern Latter-day Saints have distanced themselves from Smith’s instruction of God’s nature. Robert Millet—a professor of religious education at Brigham Young University—explains his belief about the nature of God:
Latter-day Saints believe that while the members of the Godhead are totally and completely one—infinitely more than they are separate—there exists an ordinal relationship among them; that is, the order of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is not arbitrary…Latter-day Saints do not believe in an ontological oneness within the Trinity, that is, that our Heavenly Father, our divine Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit are in fact, the same being.
Here, Millet explicitly denies that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are ontologically one God. This, in essence, is a denial of the Trinity. Millet conveniently does not mention whether or not other deities exist in this passage. However, he is not silent on the subject:
The Latter-day Saints, who believe in the Godhead, are no more polytheistic than are Christians who believe in the Trinity. God and Christ are the objects of our worship. Even though Mormons believe in the ultimate deification of man, I am unaware of any reference in LDS literature that speaks of worshiping any being other than the ones within the Godhead. Latter-day Saints believe in “one God” in the sense that they love and serve one Godhead, one divine presidency, each of whom possesses all of the attributes of Godhood.
Putting aside Millet’s poor characterization of Trinitarian monotheism, he unmistakably holds a significantly different view of God than Joseph Smith. Regardless, both Millet and Smith fall out of orthodoxy with their views of God’s nature when compared with classical and Biblical Christianity.
According to Francis Beckwith, to say that God is incorporeal is to say that “[God] is not composed of matter or constrained by limitations all material entities are faced with. He does not occupy space and is not governed by the laws of physics.” Thus, logically if God incorporeal then he must be bodiless. A sound Biblical foundation can be used to ground this belief. First, in John 4:24 Jesus says, “God is spirit.” Emery Bancroft clarifies spirit as “not a refined form of matter, but an immaterial substance, [that is] invisible, uncompounded, [and] indestructible.” Scripturally, this idea is refined in Luke 24:39 where Jesus tells the disciples “for a spirit does not have flesh and bones.” On the authority of Jesus alone, one could conclude that God does not have a physical body. Additionally, one can implicitly come to this conclusion by reflecting on Romans 1:20, 1 Timothy 1:17 and Colossians 1:15. Each one of these verses teach that God is invisible or unseen, which makes it highly unlikely that God would have a physical body. Moreover, God cannot be a physical being because 1 Kings 8:27 states, “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain You, how much less this house which I have built!” This passage highlights the fact God cannot be contained by physical parameters such as earth or heaven. Lastly, since God is the creator of the entire material universe, it would be impossible for God to also be material. For if God was material, he would have had to create himself, which is absurd. Thus, when the Bible is observed it is easy to see that God certainly does not have a physical body. He is immaterial, invisible and does not consist of any matter like that of his creation.
One objection to the view that God is incorporeal is a group of Biblical texts that appear to describe God in physical terms. For example, Exodus 7:5 mentions God’s hands, Numbers 6:24 tells of God’s face, Psalm 33:6 references God’s mouth, Psalm 34:15 speaks of God’s eyes and Psalm 89:10 addresses God’s arm. But if God does not have physical body, then why does his word describe himself in such a way? Emery Bancroft rationalizes that “those passages of Scripture which seem to ascribe to God the possession of bodily parts and organs, as eyes and hands, are to be regarded as anthropomorphic and symbolic.” Wayne Grudem adds,
Sometimes people have been troubled by the fact that there is anthropomorphic language in Scripture. But this should not be troubling to us, for, if God is going to teach by direct experience (such as his attributes), he has to teach us in terms of what we do know. This is why all that Scripture says about God is ‘anthropomorphic’ in a broad sense (speaking of God either in human terms or in terms of creation we know). This fact does not mean that Scripture gives us wrong or misleading ideas about God, for this is the way that God has chosen to reveal himself to us, and to reveal himself truly and accurately. Nonetheless, it should caution us not take any one of these descriptions by itself and isolate it from its immediate context or from the rest of what Scripture says about God.
Biblical anthropomorphic imageries of God should not lead a person to think God is embodied. Obviously, as Grudem and Bancroft point out, context is king. In other words, one needs to understand how to read and exegete the text to understand its proper meaning. Even broadly speaking, this principle is sound for all kinds of theological topics, but is paramount when studying the nature of God. Nonetheless, when accurately understood, it is clear the Bible teaches that God is incorporeal.
However, the teachings of Joseph Smith and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints disagree with this point of view. “We believe,” explains Robert Millet “that God the Father is an exalted man, a corporeal being, a personage of flesh and bones.” Millet also clarifies the LDS belief in God’s physical embodiment “is one of the most important of all truths restored in this dispensation.” Where would a modern day Mormon scholar get such an idea that God has a physical body? Look no farther than the teachings of Joseph Smith in the afore mentioned King Follet Discourse,
God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. This is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person image, and very form as a man.
Undoubtedly, Smith had wondered far from Biblical orthodoxy with this teaching. Yet, the teaching of God’s embodiment is found in more than just the King Follet Discourse. The teaching is also found in the Doctrine and Covenants, which is a collection of revelations and pronouncements from Joseph Smith. In section 130:22 Smith writes,
The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.
In light of these two teachings of Smith and the proclamation from Millet, one can see that the teaching of the Mormon Church unequivocally instills that God has a physical body.
The LDS belief that God is a material and physical embodied being directly contradicts the Biblical notion of God’s spiritual nature. Moreover, this belief causes some additional problems for the Mormon worldview. If God is a material and physical being, he then of course, consists of matter. Anything physical is made up of—at a very small level—atoms and subatomic particles. The problem for the Mormon worldview is that all of the matter, atoms and subatomic particles are governed by the natural laws of the universe. Therefore, if God is made up of matter, atoms and subatomic particles, then he too is governed by the natural laws of the universe. For if the laws of the universe did not exist, then neither would the Mormon God. In other words, the laws of nature are necessary for the Mormon God to exist. This would entail that the Mormon God could not cause the natural laws to exist; because if he did, then he would cause himself to exist; which is absurd.
Our final discussion point will be to look at God’s role in creation. First, classical Christian theism believes that God is the creator and sustainer of the Universe. Christian orthodoxy believes that God created the universe ex nihilo—a Latin phrase for “out of nothing.” To suitably understand the traditional Christian view, one will need to understand what nothingness means. “Properly understood,” clarifies noted philosopher William Lane Craig, “nothing does not mean just empty space. Nothing is the absence of anything whatsoever, even space itself. As such, nothingness has literally not properties at all, since there isn’t anything to have any properties!” Craig’s point is to make the distinction that God did not create the universe out of any existing matter, but literally out of nothingness. Creation ex nihilo is consistent with the Biblical text; for example, John 1:3 expounds, “All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” The phrase “all things” is later mentioned in Acts 17 and Hebrews 11 to mean the entire universe. Additionally, the shear logic of the verse excludes anything—including all matter and physical material of the universe—could come into being apart from Jesus.
Yet again, the Mormon view of God seriously detaches itself from orthodoxy. Mormons believe the gods did not create the universe ex nihilo; rather the gods simply organized the chaotic matter that was eternally present. Mormons therefore “believe that the material universe has existed forever.” Therefore, before the organization the universe was in a “state of chaos.” These beliefs find their origin in the Book of Abraham—found in the Pearl of Great Price—one of the Mormon Standard Works. Abraham 3:24b states, “…[the Gods] will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;” Comparably, Abraham 4:1 reads, “And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.” In addition to the Book of Abraham, the teachings of the Prophets describe God’s role in creation. First, the Prophet Joseph Smith taught:
[W]hy [do] the learned men who are preaching salvation, say that God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing? The reason is, that they are unlearned in the things of God, and have not the gift of the Holy Ghost; they account it blasphemy in any one to contradict their idea. If you tell them that God made the world out of something, they will call you a fool. But I am learned, and know more than all the world put together. The Holy Ghost does, anyhow, and He is within me, and comprehends more than all the world: and I will associate myself with Him…Hence, we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos–chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time he had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning, and can have no end.
Next, Brigham Young—the second LDS Prophet—taught:
To assert that the Lord made this earth out of nothing is preposterous and impossible. God never made something out of nothing; it is not in the economy or law by which the worlds were, are, or will exist. There is an eternity before us, and it is full of matter; and if we understand enough of the Lord and his ways, we would say that he took this matter and organized this earth from it.
The Biblical account of creation; paralleled with the Mormon traditions are irreconcilable. Clearly, as seen in the Book of Abraham and by the teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, Mormonism provides a drastically different view of creation. But for the moment, let us put the Biblical heterodoxy aside to examine the LDS teaching of an eternal universe and the serious worldview issues that surface.
Dr. William Lane Craig, in his book Reasonable Faith, explains the philosophical argument for an impossibility of forming an actual infinite collection of things by adding one member after another. Basically, the argument claims it is impossible to cross an actual infinity. Meaning, if the universe was infinite, it would be philosophically impossible to actually reach the present moment in time. For example, if we were to count backward from zero infinitely, we could never reach a stopping point. In principle, we would count forever. Therefore, if we cannot find a beginning, then we could not reverse ourselves to start moving forward to get to the present moment in time, thus making an infinite universe philosophically impossible. 
Dr. Craig then looks at a scientific argument, which deals with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This law says that the universe is constantly losing its energy and it cannot be reversed. In other words, the universe is cooling off. Even in localized cases where there are gains in energy, such as a star forming, the net effect is actually negative for the universe as whole. This is important because if the universe is infinitely old, then the universe would have run out of energy infinitely long ago. We know that the universe has not run out of energy, therefore the universe is must be finite. Consequently, these two philosophical and scientific arguments strongly suggest the universe is finite and therefore, the Mormon worldview and their teachings do not corresponded to the way the world is purported to be. In other words, the Mormon worldview is not true.
Richard Bushman hit the nail on the head when he said the “[Joseph] Smith[‘s teachings] had departed from conventional Christian theology.” The goal has been to show that God’s nature in both Mormonism and classical Christianity are contradictory and therefore cannot be considered the same God. Our discussion alone about the orthodox view of Trinitarian monotheism, compared with Mormonism’s henotheism, ought to be enough to show the divorce in the two worldviews. Yet, we also considered Mormonism’s teaching that God has a physical body contrasted with those who hold the Biblical teaching that God is incorporeal. And finally, the discovery that the God of Mormonism is not the ultimate creator causes serious philosophical and scientific problems for the LDS worldview; juxtaposed with the classical Christian worldview of creation ex nihilo which has excellent explanatory power.
Mormons, very badly, want to be considered Christians. Deep offense is taken if a Mormon was told he or she is not a Christian. In fact, an official LDS websites has the following questions regarding the subject:
Why would anyone say such a thing? Isn’t the name of our church The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Do we not worship Christ? Is not the Book of Mormon another testament of Jesus Christ? How could anyone seriously doubt that Latter-day Saints are Christians?
These questions seem disingenuous. The simple fact that a person claims to be something does not make it true they are such a thing. This is obvious. Dr. Carl Mosser writes, “In continuity with earliest Christianity, the tradition of Christian orthodoxy has always insisted that devotion to Christ is not sufficient in itself to qualify a religious movement as authentically Christian.” If the definition of being a Christian were simply insisting devotion to Jesus, then yes, Mormonism and Christianity would be identical. But, given the data presented; could one honestly say the Mormon view of the nature of God is the exact same as the orthodox Christian view of God? No. Mormonism is not Christianity and Christianity is not Mormonism.
Bancroft, Emery. Christian Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976.
Barney, Kevin. “Do We Have a Mother in Heaven?” http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/MotherInHeaven.pdf (accessed on October 28th, 2011).
Beckwith, Francis, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen. The New Mormon Challenge: Responding to the Latest Defenses of a Fast-Growing Movement. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002.
Bickel, Bruce and Stan Jantz. World Religions and Cults 101. Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 2002.
Bickmore, Barry. “Does the Book of Mormon Teach Mainstream Trinitarianism or Modalism?”
http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/BoMTrin.pdf (accessed on October 28th, 2011).
Bushman, Richard Lyman. Mormonism: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. Wheaton: Crossway, 2008.
Frend, W.H.C. The Rise of Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.
Geisler, Norman, Francis Beckwith, Ron Rhodes, et el., The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism. Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 1998.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.
Martin, Walter. The Kingdom of the Cults. Edited by Hank Hanegraaff. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1997.
Mather, George, Larry Nichols and Alvin Schmidt. Encyclopedia Dictionary of Cults, Sects and World Religions. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006.
McDermott, Gerald and Robert Millet. Claiming Christ: A Mormon—Evangelical Debate. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2007.
Millet, Robert. “What We Believe.” http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=2575 (accessed on October 28th, 2011).
Mosser, Carl and Paul Owen. “Mormonism.” In To Everyone an Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview, edited by Francis Beckwith, William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland, 324-349. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
Mosser, Carl. “Classifying Mormon Theism.” (accessed from Blackboard on October 28th, 2011).
Reynolds, Noel. “Reason and Revelation” http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6805 (accessed November 15, 2011)
Robinson, Stephen. “Are Mormons Christians” http://lds.org/new-era/1998/05/are-mormons-christians?lang=eng (accessed November 15, 2011)
Shelley, Bruce. Church History in Plain Language. 3rd ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008.
Smith, Joseph. “The King Follet Discourse” http://mldb.byu.edu/follett.htm#* (accessed October 28, 2011).
Smith, Joseph. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. http://www.boap.org/LDS/Joseph-Smith/Teachings/ (accessed November 9th, 2011)
Young, Brigham. Journal of Discourses of the General Authorities of the LDS Church. http://www.journalofdiscourses.org/volume-14/ (accessed November 9th, 2011)
 Richard Bushman, Mormonism: A Very Short Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 71.
 Joseph Smith, History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Vol. 6.
 Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 226.
 Ibid., 226-227.
 This is one objection made by Robert Millet, a Mormon scholar, in Claiming Christ: A Mormon—Evangelical Debate (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2007), 80.
 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 243.
 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 242; Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), 492.
 Bruce Shelley, Church History in Plain Language. 3rd ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008), 99-103. Arianism was condemned at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. Modalism (also known as Sabellianism because of its origins with a teacher named Sabellius) was most prominently rejected by Athanasius of Alexandria who defended of the theology of the Council of Nicea.
 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 231.
 All quotations from the Bible will be taken from the New American Standard Bible, unless otherwise noted.
 George Mather, Larry Nichols and Alvin Schmidt, Encyclopedia Dictionary of Cults, Sects and World Religions 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 424.
 Joseph Smith, The Pearl of Great Price: Articles of Faith, 1:1.
 Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section 6, 370.
 Carl Mosser, “Classifying Mormon Theism”.
 Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section 6, 370.
 Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section 6, 370.
 Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 602.
 Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section 6, 370.
 Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 316.
 Gerald McDermott and Robert Millet, Claiming Christ: A Mormon—Evangelical Debate (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2007), 79.
 Robert Millet, The Mormon Faith: A New Look at Christianity. As quoted from “http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/polytheism.htm”
 Francis Beckwith, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen, The New Mormon Challenge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 196.
 Francis Beckwith, The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism (Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 1998), 52.
 Bancroft, Christian Theology, 71.
 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 188.
 Bancroft, Christian Theology, 71.
 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 188.
 Robert Millet, “What We Believe”
 Joseph Smith, “The King Follet Discourse”
 Stephen Parrish and Carl Mosser, The New Mormon Challenge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 204-205.
 Beckwith, The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism, 53.
 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 262-263.
 William Lane Craig. On Guard (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2010), 76.
 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 263.
 Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section 6, 350.
 Parrish and Mosser, The New Mormon Challenge, 201.
 Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section 6, 350.
 Brigham Young, The Journal of Discourses, Volume 14, 116.
 William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 120.
 Ibid., 140-142.
 Bushman, Mormonism, 71.
 Stephen Robinson, “Are Mormons Christians” http://lds.org/new-era/1998/05/are-mormons-christians?lang=eng
 Carl Mosser and Paul Owen, “Mormonism” in To Everyone an Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview, edited by Francis Beckwith, William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland, 324-349. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 331.