Does the LDS View of God “Make More Sense” Than the Trinity?

This last weekend I participated in a three-on-three debate with Latter-day Saints (formerly known as “Mormons”) in Las Vegas. Micah Kunkle, Marcus Bratton, and I had a friendly—but intense—conversation with Travis, Matt, and Haley.

Honestly, my favorite part wasn’t the debate itself—it was forming genuine friendships with them.

(The full debate will be released this Saturday on The Way with Brian Davila).

One of their contentions was that their view of the Godhead “makes more sense” than the classical Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

At first glance, I understand the appeal. After all, the LDS view is simple and very easy to understand:

• Three distinct beings.

• Three separate gods.

• Three different gods merely united in purpose.
  

That sounds straightforward. But here’s the problem: Simplicity is not the same thing as truth.

The real question is not: Which view feels easier to understand? More important than simplicity is what view makes sense of all the data.

So the real question is: Which view is logically coherent and actually true?

And when we press into that question—especially at the level of serious philosophy—the conversation changes dramatically.

Step One: The Ontological Argument

Let’s begin with one of the most discussed arguments in philosophy of religion: the Ontological Argument.

Here is a standard version based on the laws and rules of modal logic:

The Ontological Argument

1. It is possible that a Maximally Great Being exists.

2. If it is possible that a Maximally Great Being exists, then it exists in some possible world.

3. If a Maximally Great Being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If a Maximally Great Being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

5. If a Maximally Great Being exists in the actual world, then a Maximally Great Being exists.

6. Therefore, a Maximally Great Being exists.

This isn’t some philosophical Jedi mind trick—it’s a logically deductive argument based on the laws of logic, the rules of reason, and the rules of modal logic. So, if the premises are true, the conclusion must follow. If it's even possible for a maximally great being (the definition of God) to exist, then God must exist.

The conclusion follows logically even if one begins by saying "a maximally great being probably doesn't exist" (click here to see how).

(For a fuller explanation of these premises, see Chapter 16 in the forthcoming second edition of Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism.)

In Plain English

Here’s what that means in everyday language:

If it’s even possible that a maximally perfect, all-powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient), perfectly good and loving (omnibenevolent) being exists…

Then that being wouldn’t be limited, temporary, dependent, or contingent upon anything else. It would exist necessarily—meaning: It cannot fail to exist.

And if such a being exists necessarily, then: It doesn’t just exist in our minds—it exists in reality.

Why This Matters for the LDS View

The LDS view of God does not affirm a maximally great being in this sense.

Instead, it teaches:

• The being we refer to as "God" (along with each and every one of us) was once not a god, but still a necessarily existing imperfect “intelligence”

• This “intelligence” somehow progressed to divinity (and is now a contingently existing deity)

• All humans can also become gods (exalted beings in the celestial realm)

• There is an infinite past chain of divine beings

  
  

That creates a serious philosophical problem:

• There is no ultimate, necessary foundation

• Only an infinite regress of dependent beings

But an infinite regress of contingent beings does not explain reality. It postpones the question (infinitely)—it doesn’t answer it. It never answers it! It continually and endlessly sweeps the problem under the rug or kicks the can down the road.

So at a deeper level, the LDS view—while perhaps easier to understand—does not “make more sense”—at least if we are discussing logical sense.

The LDS view fails to provide a final explanation at all.

Step Two: From Maximal Greatness to the Necessary Trinity

Now this is where things get really interesting.

If a Maximally Great Being exists, what would that being be like? This is where Dr. Kirk MacGregor—a PhD philosopher—takes things even further.

MacGregor’s Ontological Argument for the Trinity

1.    God is the one and only maximally great being.

2.    A maximally great being essentially possesses every great-making property.

3.    Being all-loving (omnibenevolent) is a great-making property.

4.    Therefore, God is essentially all-loving (from 1 – 3).

5.    Love possesses two essential qualities: selfless mutuality and non-possessiveness.[1]

6.    Therefore, God is essentially selflessly mutual and essentially non-possessive (from 4 – 5).

7.    Selfless mutuality requires a community of at least two persons.

8.    Non-possessiveness requires a community of at least three persons.

9.    Therefore, God is essentially a community of at least three persons (from 6 – 8).

10.  Any divine person must exist necessarily, not merely contingently.

11.  Exactly three divine persons are necessary and sufficient to fulfill the conjunction of selfless mutuality and non-possessiveness.

12. Therefore, any community of divine persons greater than three will include at least one member who exists contingently (from 11).

13. Therefore, no community of divine persons can be greater than three (from 12, 10).

14. Therefore, God is essentially (and necessarily) a community of exactly three persons (from 9, 13).

Conclusion: The one and only maximally great being is essentially and necessarilly tri-personal. Nothing more than three persons in one perfect being; nothing less than three persons in the one perfect being.

In Plain English

Let’s break that down so a ten-year-old can understand it:

If God is maximally great, then God is perfectly loving. But love isn’t something God just does—it’s something God is (1 John 4:8).

And love has certain essential features:

• It is self-giving

• It is relational

• It is not closed in on itself

  
  

Now here’s the key insight:

• One person alone cannot express love

• Two persons can love—but that love can remain inward

• Three persons allow love to be fully shared, fully self-giving, and non-possessive

  
  

So it follows from MacGregor’s deductive argument:

There can only be one maximally great being. A maximally great being is not one person. A maximally great being is not two persons. No, God is exactly three persons in one maximally great being.

This is necessary to fully express perfect love without beginning.

Let That Sink In

This means something profound.

The Trinity is not:

• a logical contradiction

• a theological embarrassment

• a doctrine we reluctantly accept

  
  

Far from it. The Trinity is actually: What we would and should expect if God is maximally great.

And ultimately, it’s what logically follows from the Ontological Argument alone (although a biblical case can be made for one God and three persons, in the above argument no Bible verses have been referenced to reach the deductive conclusion).

Biblical Support

This is something many of us know is true—and we experience first-hand.

While the following is not offered as proof, it is interesting to note that Scripture itself hints at the strength of a threefold unity in perfect loving relationships. As the author of Ecclesiastes writes:

“A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.” (Ecclesiastes 4:12)

Now, I am not suggesting that this verse is explicitly teaching the Trinity. That would be a mistake. However, it does reflect a principle we observe even in human relationships: unity is not weakened—but often strengthened—by this kind of relational structure.

In fact, we often see that the strongest marriages are not merely a union of two persons, but a relationship grounded in three: God, husband, and wife. This does not prove the Trinity, but it does provide a helpful illustration from scripture that a threefold unity is not only coherent—it can be deeply powerful and even expected when love is fully expressed.

Indeed, many of us have seen this play out in real life—the strongest marriages are often those grounded in a shared love for God, where love is not merely exchanged between two persons, but overflows from a relationship with the maximally great being. Indeed, these maximal marriages are perfect examples of what it means to be a "three cord wonder!"

So Which View “Makes More Sense”?

The LDS view may seem simpler at first glance.

But when we press deeper:

• it denies a maximally great being

• it introduces an infinite regress (which is metaphysically impossible)

• it fails to provide an ultimate explanation

By contrast, the Christian view of the one triune God:

• affirms one necessary, maximally great being

• avoids infinite regress

• and—remarkably—

  can be supported by serious philosophical argument (not even appealing to scripture) pointing toward a tri-personal God

  
  

Final Thoughts

In conclusion... if the question is: “Which view makes more sense?” Then we need to clarify what we mean by sense.

If we mean: “Which one is easiest to picture in our mind?” Then perhaps LDS theology wins. I'll grant that much.

But if we mean: “Which one is logically coherent, philosophically grounded, and capable of explaining ultimate reality (not to mention making sense of the whole of The Bible)?”

Then the answer is very different.

And at that level: The Trinity doesn’t just survive scrutiny. It’s actually the best explanation of ultimate reality.

So the question is no longer whether the Trinity ‘makes sense’—but whether we are willing to follow the logic wherever it leads.

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Dr. Tim Stratton

---

 Notes

[1] By “selfless mutuality,” we mean a relationship in which persons give themselves to one another in a reciprocal, other-centered way. Love is not one-directional (it is not selfish)—it is shared.

By “non-possessiveness,” we mean that love is not closed in on itself or hoarded between two individuals, but is freely and fully shared without exclusion.

Together, these features suggest that perfect love is not solitary and not merely dual—but fully relational in a way that is open, shared, and complete. For example, my wife has told me that she wants me to love God more than I love her. And interestingly, when I am truly putting God first, she often feels as though I am putting her first. I share the exact same sentiment—I want my wife to love God even more than she loves me. When she’s doing that, life is good! This concept will be discussed in more detail below.