Also if you didn’t read it the second part of this post is on the example of Orson Pratt’s theology which ends up thinking through a way of reconciling Mormon theology with something very much like the Trinity only with this pretty weird materialistic ontology.

Certainly the Trinity as most Mormons understand it is false doctrine. But that’s because it is commonly misunderstood. So what is attacked is almost always a strawman. The equating of Trinity with modalism is pretty consistent in Mormon history going back to Joseph Smith. So it is fairly easy to understand why it is attacked.

The second problem is that the Trinity is frankly difficult to understand. Even a lot of folks who have been to seminaries often present it as modalism. Until you really delve into the philosophical background of the doctrine you can’t quite get your mind wrapped around it.

Further let me one again repeat that I’m not saying Mormons buy into the Trinity as understood in traditional Christianity. That’s because all the context to the formal statements of doctrine add in things we definitely disagree with. (Such as the doctrine of creation ex nihilo) So how a mainstream Christian theologian would interpret the doctrine as applied would be narrower than what I’m asserting here. I’m simply pointing out that the doctrine proper isn’t as incompatible with LDS thought as it first appears. And I the doctrine proper (i.e. the creedal statements) are fully compatible with LDS doctrine if not necessarily even systematic theological interpretation of Mormon doctrine. (As I said, McConkie definitely adopts a nominalistic view of God’s unity)

A modern day Apostle of the Lord who is a special witness of Christ has rebuked the doctrine of the trinity and says it is false doctrine. Elder Bruce R McConkie says in regard to this subject, "It is my pattern and custom to simply teach and testify. I do not debate and I do not argue. If someone wants to contend to the contrary, he is just as welcome as the day is long to do so. But let us understand this. When we deal with God’s laws, when we get into the realm of spiritual things, we are dealing with the things that save souls, and at our peril we are obligated to find the truth."

The trinity is false doctrine. We do not receive that doctrine into our hearts because it does not save. Be warned, when we receive such a stern warning and declaration of the truth from a special witness of Christ, and then we ignore that warning, then we are apostatizing from the true Church of God and sacrifice the rights, privileges and blessings so involved and given for Eternal exaltation. There is no reason to ponder that heresy, that blasphemy against God and that untrue, false doctrine.

There are two places where I think my claims about the Trinity may fall flat and I’ll address them in an other post. (The next one will be about Pratt)

To briefly summarize though there is the issue that the persons in the Trinity shouldn’t be understood like a human person. (See the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on person for more info) My answer is complex but I think Mormons end up expanding the notion of person for everyone due to our theology of pre-existence.

The second is over the relations of the entities of the Trinity. That is the Father is neither begotten nor proceeds whereas the Son is begotten and the Holy Ghost proceeds. I think that while some Mormons will have trouble here others won’t.

There are definitely some strong similarities between social trinitarianism and the LDS view. The key differences, in my view, then are over the corporeal nature of the Father and areas that get into LDS speculation, such as the origins of the Father (e.g., did He have a Father) and whether there was a Heavenly Mother needed before Jesus could become Who He is.

This is intriguing. Are there other similar LDS links to what you are saying here?

One difference we might see between Mormons and mainstream Christian theologies is that Mormons primarily focus and are concerned about the persons. Outside of a few examples (such as Pratt) Mormons really haven’t concerned themselves with the question of the unity of God. Contrast this with most theological writings over the centuries in mainstream Christianity and there the ousia of God gets considerable focus. The persons far less focus (outside of debates regarding Christology)