OK, I Am Confused. Do Mormons Believe In The Trinity?

[Jerusha]

Excommunicated from the LDS church:

Simon Southerton, DNA scientist proved Native Americans do not have Jewish DNA
D. Michael Quinn, historian, proposed that there was homosexuality among early LDS
Paul Toscano, attorney, theologian, objected to authoritarian LDS hierarchy
Maxine Hanks, feminist, theologian, protested women’s place in LDS theology
Lavina Fielding Anderson, historian, ditto, wrote biography of Lucy Mack Smith
Fawn Brodie, historian, exposed many of JS’s misdeeds

 

[Stephen168]

The subject is your claim that Catholicism is the ‘true church of Christ’ because science, history and reason prove it to be so.

My claim is Mormonism only has faith when claiming to be the true Church of Christ. No history, reason, or science. The Catholic Church has history, reason, and science on its side.

I have shown that the ancient Egyptions have twice the history Catholics do, but that their length of existence does not prove THEM to be ‘true.’

Christ lived between sometime between 8BC and 33AD near Jerusalem. Egyptians started worshiping RA about 3000BC in Egypt, so they could not be the true Church of Christ. Mormons started worshiping their god 1800 years after Christ lived, in America, so they could not be the true Church of Christ either.

How, then, can simply being around a long time prove that Catholicism is 'the true church of Christ?"

Yes, because it was started by Christ; at the time he lived, and the place he lived.

History, Science and Reason support Catholicism. In the last 50 years they have shown Mormonism to be false; which is why historians, and scientist have been excommunicated for the Mormon Church in the last few years.

Reason supports the Christian understanding of God. Not the mythical creature god of Mormonism.

Grant Palmer – Historian (disfellowshiped)
Dennis Michael Quinn – Historian (excommunicated)
Simon Southerton - Molecular biologist (excommunicated)
Lavina Fielding Anderson - Scholar/writer (excommunicated)

 

[dianaiad]

Jerusha:
Jerusha, your post makes it far too difficult to address a response to.

Yes, we excommunicate people who are practicing homosexuals and teach that we should worship a Mother in HEaven the way we do God. Odd of us, I suppose…

However, none of these people have proven that the church is false any more than science has proven Catholicism false just because it proved that the earth revolved around the sun when the Church taught that the earth was the center of all things.

(shrug)

Your list of ex-communicants may make your fingers happy to type, but they are very much red herrings.

Focus…

 

[RebeccaJ]

I don’t care whether there was a successor to the Bishops of Rome. What I am saying is who gave the Bishop of Rome the authority over the whole church? Where is the source of that “sacred tradition”?

The authority was given to Peter, by Jesus. The Bishop of Rome is the successor to Peter. Throughout history the bishops of the various churches have looked to Rome for advice and to settle disputes. This is evident, again, beginning from the letters of St Clement and through the early Church. It was formalized to a greater extend in the 5th century. The Orthodox recognize the primacy of Rome, just as the Church in the West does. This is not the dispute between the two because our shared Sacred Tradition indicates this a very ancient practice. What the Orthodox object to is Rome’s claim of supreme power.

What you are looking for is evident in how the Church has functioned, as it is described in Acts, and early Church writings.

 

[RebeccaJ]

You should be careful how you flaunt this information. One might think the Catholics had the power to reject or keep whatever they wanted in the scriptures…

The power given to the Church by Jesus, and continued to be guided by the Holy Spirit. You may have a lack of faith in the Word of God and the unfailing guidance of the Holy Spirit. I don’t.

 

[dianaiad]

My claim is Mormonism only has faith when claiming to be the true Church of Christ. No history, reason, or science. The Catholic Church has history, reason, and science on its side.

…and there she goes, claiming it again, without any shred of support.

Christ lived between sometime between 8BC and 33AD near Jerusalem. Egyptians started worshiping RA about 3000BC in Egypt, so they could not be the true Church of Christ.

Steph…focus, m’dear. I didn’t claim that the Egyptions were the ‘true church of Christ.’ I said that their religion (which had spit diddle to do with Christianity) lasted about twice as long as Catholicism has…If your claim that the length of time you’ve been around is evidence for your truth, then by your own standards, we should be worshiping Ra, Isis and Horus. After all, they were around longer.

Mormons started worshiping their god 1800 years after Christ lived, in America, so they could not be the true Church of Christ either.

Uh…

By that reasoning, any Christian who actually KNEW Christ couldn’t possibly have been in the true Church of Christ; they weren’t around long enough.

By the way, you could continue to list every single person we’ve ever excommunicated (and the Catholics have done the same to ENTIRE NATIONS!) and it still wouldn’t prove that science, history and reason prove that the Catholic church is the 'true church of Christ."

The only thing that witnesses to anybody that Jesus is the Christ is the Holy Ghost. Not science, not history, not reason—but the pure spirit of Christ. So stop this, already. You simply aren’t getting the point.

 

[Stephen168]

…and there she goes,

Please review Chapters 6 & 7 in the Book of Acts and note the sex of the main character. You will be SHOCKED at how similar it is to mine.

 

[Stephen168]

The only thing that witnesses to anybody that Jesus is the Christ is the Holy Ghost. Not science, not history, not reason—but the pure spirit of Christ.

I know that is what you believe because that is all you have.

 

[Stephen168]

If your claim that the length of time you’ve been around is evidence for your truth, then by your own standards, we should be worshiping Ra, Isis and Horus.

That has NEVER been my claim. As much as you would like it to be, it was NEVER been my claim.

Please review:
Christ lived between sometime between 8BC and 33AD near Jerusalem. Egyptians started worshiping RA about 3000BC in Egypt, so they could not be the true Church of Christ. Mormons started worshiping their god 1800 years after Christ lived, in America, so they could not be the true Church of Christ either. **The Catholic Church was started by Christ; at the time he lived, and the place he lived. ** History, Reason, and Science are on the side of the Catholic Church

 

[Stephen168]

By the way, you could continue to list every single person we’ve ever excommunicated

I only needed to list one to make my point and prove you wrong

 

[Jerusha]

Stephen, some of the LDS here think that we are one huge sock-puppet, and that I am the central personality. :takeoff::egyptian::choocho::jrbirdman::juggle: :hypno: :whacky:

Actually, I am mostly:

:compcoff:

Or :manvspc: due to an erratic internet connection.

 

[Scriptorian]

but if we look at the previous verse Jesus was asked about the women who had been widowed by three or four husbands and asked who’s wife she would be. that is when Jesus said this. there is no marriage in heaven and at death the marriage ends.

Where is it written that marriage must end at death?

 

[Scriptorian]

after the resurrection we shall be in heaven so if there is no marring in the resurrection there is no marriage in heaven.

don’t count as I do not give the BOM or the D&C no any other of the Mormon writings any more credence than I would the Koran or the writing of the gurus in India

First of all, I am not trying to convince you of anything, onesy. I am explaining what we believe about marriage. So, consider this guru an instructor that widens your perspective.

We find that when this verse says that “in the resurrection” people are not “married nor given in marriage” it is using an action word, not a descriptor. In other words, people don’t “get married,” but that doesn’t mean thay “aren’t married.”

If that were not the case why would Paul say:

11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. (1 Corinthians 11:11)

 

[Scriptorian]

This was not the Church this was from God. You shall worship no gods before me. I AM there are non but me. In giving Jesus and the Holy Ghost completely separate beings you have created other gods and set them equal to I AM.

What of this scripture:

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. (John 8:58)

Jesus was the Great I AM. And it was God that made Jesus his equal,not me:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)

 

[Scriptorian]

Yes the LDS Church claims to continue the same organization as the early Church, and yet many of these similarities end with the name. There are currently 15 Apostles, not 12. Was Peter known as the “President”? Is this a restoration of ancient Church organization? Were prophets above the apostles in the ancient Church? Did prophets have successors in the Old and New Testaments? Is there evidence that James and John were set apart as part of the “First Presidency”? Are the apostles, prophets, the Melchizedek and Aaronic Priesthoods, etc. as described in the Bible really analagous or “restored” in the LDS Church?

Also, is the worship style of Latter-day Saints equivalent to that of the ancient Church?

For Mormons, there are twelve apostles in the quorum of the twelve. The other three men are called the “First Presidency” and are technically presiding High Priests. They are Apostles, and Elders, and High Priests.

Peter might have been known as the President of the Church, but that word seems to have been translated differently over the years.

Prophets were not “above” the Apostles in the ancient church, the Apostles were the prophets in the ancient church.

Prophets did have successors. Elisha was the successor to Elijah. Joshua was the successor to Moses. Isaac was the successor to Abraham. Shem was the successor to Noah. Abel/Seth were the successors to Adam. Etc.

The evidence that James and John were “set apart” from the other apostles can be found in this scripture:

2 ¶ And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain **apart **by themselves: and he was transfigured before them. (Mark 9:2)

Something special happened on that mount, and only Peter, James, and John were chosen from among the disciples.

And finally, YES. The apostles, prophets, the Melchizedek and Aaronic Priesthoods, etc. as described in the Bible really are analagous or “restored” in the LDS Church.

20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. (Acts 3:20-12)

 

[Scriptorian]

I disagree about your use of “unbiased.” History is full of bias, and witnesses always have a bias in their view. History is not recorded in a lab with careful controls. However, you are at least as biased as those men were. Here you reflect your own anti-constantinian view and use that to disqualify the writings of people 1700 years closer to an event than you are as to what that event was. And I think your view of Constantine is unfounded. Nothing that I have read has ever established that he promoted a view of the Church established on authority in Old Rome. He may have supported it, but since he moved his seat from that city to Constantinople, and since that city very early on began arguing in the Councils for her own status, it certainly seems unlikely. If anything he would more likely be in support of New Rome not Old Rome.

I also think you make a switch in the above argument, from whether St. Linus was the first bishop of Rome to a general discussion of Papal primacy. Your list of six would more than likely relate only to the former than the latter. You seem to be starting with that specific topic and then generalizing your understanding and applying it to the whole tradition of the Papacy. They are not the same issue though. I think there is a very strong assortment of Fathers, councils and such for Roman primacy thoughout the Early Church period, including Igantius of Antioch if I recall correctly as well as Iranaeus again, and very few probably discussed St. Linus. Even the Eastern Churches universally accepted the primacy of Rome, though they argued about just what it entailed.

But, again, you have not demonstrated that he manipulated history for Rome over any other Church. Neither have you demonstrated that Constantine held such a position, and that is the entire keystone of this argument.

Yes he wanted orthodoxy, but you have not made a case that he selected what was orthodox. All indications seem to be that bishops, in council, decided that and Constantine accepted it and promulgated their decision with his authority. If you are saying that he determined what was orthodox then you would have to support that with something, and nobody else as ever seemed able to do so.

You have not established this though. Is it your bias about the “controversial” emperor, or is it real bias on the part of Eusebius? Eusebius is an excellent historical source very close to the periods we are discussing. Throwing him aside would be akin to ignoring Suetonius regarding the life of Caligula. And again the only thing you are casting doubt on here is whether it was St. Linus or St. Clement who succeeded to the papacy in Rome. That is an historical curiosity of some merit, but it hardly makes a case as to whether Rome had a primacy in the Early Church, which is certainly well attested.

I don’t see that at all. Whether Rome’s primacy was one of universal juridical authority or some other form is certainly arguable, but not that it had primacy. That has tremendously strong beginnings.

You have correctly identified my bias. I like Irenaeus, but I think both Constantine and Eusebius were both corrupt.

Constatine was a pagan politician and a violent warmonger, not a Christian. He gave Christians their freedom to win their support. A brilliant move politically, but a disastrous move for the Church. The reason it was so terrible is that he required an orthodoxy to be put in place. Not a problem if Christianity had not already become devastatingly splintered. But you had the “Roman Church” (led by numerous Bishops who had differing opinions about orthodoxy themselves), the Donatists, the Arianists, the Novationists, the Ebionites, the Gnostics, the Marcionists, the Montanists, and who knows how many other groups who each had portions of what they thought were the original teachings of Christ or the true gospel (though most admittedly were pretty far off base).

Who is to say that the “Roman Church” was the right one? Constantine, that’s who. It was Rome’s might that did away (eventually) with dissenters. And it was the first time in Christian history that Christians persecuted other Christians because of differing beliefs. What a sad day!! Constantine actually led a campaign of Christians to war against the Donatists in Africa.

So, am I a little upset by Constantine? Yeah. He was a flake.

And what about Eusebius? He was a sycophantic follower of Constantine, his flowery biographer, and an unreliable historian to say the least. He was Constantine’s Christian propagandist, and a very effective one at that. Constantine was as much a Pagan as any previous Emperor had been, but for some reason Eusebius thought he was worthy of the highest adoration. Maybe I am being a little harsh. But as a bishop, Eusebius should have been standing up against the ways of Constantine, not propping him up.

I really never made the argument of whether Linus or Clement was the second Pope. I think they both were probably the most upstanding of men and will have a place with Peter in heaven. I just don’t think either one of them ever claimed or would claim to be anything like a Pope or the Presiding Official in the Church. I think that title was given posthumously.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

What of this scripture:

Jesus was the Great I AM. And it was God that made Jesus his equal,not me:

The explanation of these scripture is easy, the Trinity, the are one in being, in substance not 3 different. The Father, Son, Holy Ghost All one in 3 persona’s But one in being. The scripture you chose prove the Catholic stance.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

First of all, I am not trying to convince you of anything, onesy. I am explaining what we believe about marriage. So, consider this guru an instructor that widens your perspective.

We find that when this verse says that “in the resurrection” people are not “married nor given in marriage” it is using an action word, not a descriptor. In other words, people don’t “get married,” but that doesn’t mean thay “aren’t married.”

If that were not the case why would Paul say:

lets look at that

“in the resurrection people are not married” nor given in marriage.
if you look at the first part when you resurrect not married, if you were you no longer are.

 

[Scriptorian]

The authority was given to Peter, by Jesus. The Bishop of Rome is the successor to Peter. Throughout history the bishops of the various churches have looked to Rome for advice and to settle disputes. This is evident, again, beginning from the letters of St Clement and through the early Church. It was formalized to a greater extend in the 5th century. The Orthodox recognize the primacy of Rome, just as the Church in the West does. This is not the dispute between the two because our shared Sacred Tradition indicates this a very ancient practice. What the Orthodox object to is Rome’s claim of supreme power.

What you are looking for is evident in how the Church has functioned, as it is described in Acts, and early Church writings.

You say that “Throughout history the bishops of the various churches have looked to Rome for advice and to settle disputes.” But you completely ignore the fact that it was not the Church that was looking to Rome, but Roman Bishops who were looking beyond their own jurisdiction.

For example, Clement may have written letters to the church as a whole, but it wasn’t the church who turned to Clement for direction. In his letter he is practically begging the early church to listen to their Bishops and to do what God wants them to do. You see already the seeds of apostasy had begun to take hold.

Eusebius is another example of Rome seeking out the church, not the other way around. In this case, however, I believe it was a propaganda move to have the church accept Constantine as their protector and the new orthodoxy as “universal” gospel. Unfortunately, many groups resisted to the end. Even when Constantine led “Orthodox” Christians to fight against the Donatist Christians in Africa, the campaign was unsuccessful and the Donatists stuck around for several hundred years. Those Christians certainly did not look to Rome other than maybe with contempt or fear.

So, the basic question remains. Was it God who appointed Rome as the Head of the Church, or was it Rome who appointed themselves? If it was the latter then I have a scripture for you:

4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.
5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. (Hebrews 5:4-5)

 

[Scriptorian]

The explanation of these scripture is easy, the Trinity, the are one in being, in substance not 3 different. The Father, Son, Holy Ghost All one in 3 persona’s But one in being. The scripture you chose prove the Catholic stance.

I knew you’d say that…