Mormons do not believe in the Trinity?

I was doing some research and found out that Mormons disregard the Trinity. They are polytheistic and believe there are multiple gods.

Why would they believe this and is it proof that their church is corrupt?

There is a TON of proof against their religion in the Bible. Not once does it make mention of multiple gods. There is but One God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The relationship of the Trinity is described in the first book of the Bible:

Then God said,

“Let us make man in our image, after **our **likeness…”
Genesis 1: 26

Notice how “God” is singular and “our” describes multiple (describing multiple persons in one being… also known as the Trinity :D):thumbsup:

Father Z recently ran an item about this in his blog.

Mormon Church was founded by a teenager, bored to death on his family’s farm in New York.

Catholic church was founded by JESUS CHRIST.

Who shall you folow? Not saying anything bad about the person or person’s practicing that religion. I’ll pray for all sheep that are led astray.

God Bless to all!

Mormons would say this proves their doctrine. Remember they believe there are many gods with physical bodies. So, it would make perfect sense if the god of this world said to his fellow gods “let us make man in our image”. Just wanted to point out the flaw in your proof as far as a Mormons are concerned.

I think the Mormons may have overlooked (unless they didn’t please correct me if wrong) the fact that Jesus tells his Disciples "Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Matthew 28:19 (DRB).

Did they note that Jesus says “In the** name**…” and not “in the **names ** of the Father and of The Son and of the Holy Ghost”


Generally speaking, even if you’re acting on behalf of a group, you are said to be doing something “in the name of”. I’ve never seen it pluralized in any usage, biblical or otherwise.

For example, “In the name of God and King”, a formula often used in monarchies not that long ago, where the two are distinct persons.

But it’s not “In the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit”. There is a difference isn’t there?


Are you implying Mormons do not accept God as Father? Because In the name of God and King is not the same as In the name of The Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. God and King are two separate entities all together. Or am I missing something?:confused:


Allow a response from a sola scriptura advocate about how many gods there are.
Genesis 21:33 And Abraham planted a tree in Beer-sheba, and called there on the name of Jehovah, the everlasting God.
Deuteronomy 4:39 Therefore, know this day and consider within your heart, that Jehovah is God in Heaven above and on the earth beneath. There is no other.
Isaiah 45:18 For so says Jehovah the Creator of the heavens, He is God, forming the earth and making it; He makes it stand, not creating it empty, but forming it to be inhabited. I am Jehovah, and there is no other.
Isaiah 45:21 Declare and bring near; yea, let them take counsel together. Who has declared this of old? Who has told it from then? Is it not I, Jehovah? And there is no other God besides Me; a just God and a Savior; there is none besides Me.
Isaiah 45:22 Turn to Me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other.
Isaiah 46:9 Remember former things from forever; for I am God, and no other is God, even none like Me,
Psaalms 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting You are God.
Jeremiah 10:10 But Jehovah is the true God, He is the living God, and the everlasting King. At His wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to stand His fury.
Revelations 1:8 I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the Ending, says the Lord, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.

FYI: In the Hebrew Bible God, Elohim, is plural (of El).

This can be interpreted as indictative of God’s majesty and glory or, for Christians, as pointing towards the plurality of persons in the one God. Mormons believe that Elohim is the personal name of God the Father and Jehovah refers to Jesus.

There have been differing views on the uniqueness of God the Father within the Mormon faith. It seems in earlier years that many LDS believed that our Heavenly Father progressed to his godhood and had his own father god, and so on, ‘world without end’ – an endless generation of gods stretching back to infinity. Since we are considered to be literal spirit children of God, we each have the opportunity to also progress into godhood and eventually have our own spirit children and be in effect their god. But our Heavenly Father will always be our god and the only god that we worship, even though there may be an infinite number of gods in the universe(s). This belief does appear, however, to contradict what their own Book of Mormon teaches about God.

In more recent years there does seem to be a movement away from those earlier beliefs, as the former LDS prophet Gordon Hinckley famously stated on a television interview that “we don’t know much about that”. But Mormons still believe that even if God the Father has always been God and has no God above Him, we remain literal children of God and so are of the same ‘species’ as God (angels and demons would also fall into the same category of being literal children of God, though demons are spirits that have been denied physical bodies). God the Father is believed to have a glorified human body, as ours will be after the resurrection. They also believe that the elements are co-eternal with God (although defining what the elements exactly are can be tricky) and that some aspect of ourselves, our intelligence, is co-eternal with God. So God is not viewed in Mormon theology as being the source and cause of all else that exists. To me that is the most fundamental difference between Mormon doctrine and orthodox Christianity.

On the dogma of the Trinity, Mormons would argue that it cannot be found in the New Testament (and even contradicts the NT). To them, Trinitarianism is proof positive that the original teachings of the apostles were corrupted by the Catholic church. Mormons are proudly non-Trinitarian.

In my experience Mormons tend to have a poor understanding of what the dogma of the Trinity actually is or how it was developed over the first centuries of Christianity. Many seem to believe that it was pulled out of thin air in the 4th century. But really the Trinity or the 4th century does not represent some watershed moment between orthodox Christianity and Mormon beliefs on God. By the early 2nd century (and arguably the 1st as well), orthodox Christians already had beliefs on the nature of God and the created world that are decidely non-Mormon. The Trinity is just icing on the cake.

The LDS CAN’T believe in the Trinity. Since they believe God used to be a sinful man, there can be no Trinity.

Mormons have conflicting teachings on God


Early in his career as prophet, seer, and revelator of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints, Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, which he claimed to be the “fullness of the everlasting Gospel.” In it are passages that proclaim there is only one God and that God can’t change.

The next time you speak with Mormon missionaries, cite these verses: “I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity” (Moroni 8:18); “For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today and forever and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing? And now, if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles” (Mormon 9:9-10).

It’s hard to be more explicit than that. In his early years Smith did not believe in the “law of eternal progression.” He had an orthodox understanding of God’s immutable nature. But at some point in his theological odyssey he veered into the land of doublethink.


Justin Martyr describes the nature of Jesus Christ very well, in his dialogue with Trypho. c.165AD

“I shall give you another testimony, my friends,” said I, “from the Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave (Nun). For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the Father’s will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will; just as we see happening among ourselves: for when we give out some word, we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word [which remains] in us, when we give it out: and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled.

And the Incarnation (which Mormons reject); of Christ’s Church, established forever as the Kingdom of God; of salvation through Jesus Christ and not the law; etc.

It is an excellent apologetics of Christian belief.

And even earlier, the Christian apologist Aristides (125 AD) taught:

“I say, then, that God is not born, not made, an ever-abiding nature without beginning and without end, immortal, perfect, and incomprehensible. Now when I say that he is “perfect,” this means that there is not in him any defect, and he is not in need of anything but all things are in need of him. And when I say that he is “without beginning,” this means that everything which has beginning has also an end, and that which has an end may be brought to an end. He has no name, for everything which has a name is kindred to things created. Form he has none, nor yet any union of members; for whatsoever possesses these is kindred to things fashioned. He is neither male nor female. The heavens do not limit him, but the heavens and all things, visible and invisible, receive their bounds from him.”

And Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (180 AD):

*“Thus then there is shown forth One God, the Father, not made, invisible, creator of all things; above whom there is no other God, and after whom there is no other God. And, since God is rational, therefore by (the) Word He created the things that were made; and God is Spirit, and by (the) Spirit He adorned all things … This then is the order of the rule of our faith, and the foundation of the building, and the stability of our conversation: God, the Father, not made, not material, invisible; one God, the creator of all things: this is the first point of our faith.”

“So then the Father is Lord and the Son is Lord, and the Father is God and the Son is God; for that which is begotten of God is God. And so in the substance and power of His being there is shown forth one God; but there is also according to the economy of our redemption both Son and Father. Because to created things the Father of all is invisible and unapproachable, therefore those who are to draw near to God must have their access to the Father through the Son.”*

And Melito, Bishop of Sardis (165AD) on the two natures of Christ:

“For there is no need, to persons of intelligence, to attempt to prove, from the deeds of Christ subsequent to His baptism, that His soul and His body, His human nature like ours, were real, and no phantom of the imagination. For the deeds done by Christ after His baptism, and especially His miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of the Deity hidden in His flesh. For, being at once both God and perfect man likewise, He gave us sure indications of His two natures: of His Deity, by His miracles during the three years that elapsed after His baptism; of His humanity, during the thirty similar periods which preceded His baptism, in which, by reason of His low estate as regards the flesh, He concealed the signs of His Deity, although He was the true God existing before all ages.”

But of course from a Mormon perspective it all fell apart after the death of the last apostle, so anything after the 1st century is automatically suspect and can be dismissed if needed. 2nd century AD? Already too late I’m afraid. In fact, supposedly the apostasy was already underway while the apostle were still alive and preaching, so I guess Christian writings from the 1st century are questionable as well. Then there is the whole issue of the supposed corruption of the Biblical texts.


I’m saying that one never uses the plural “In the names of”, it is always “In the name of”, no matter how many you are dealing with.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit