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

[dianaiad]

I’m just surprised that someone with such a know-it-all condescending tone in almost every post would think that a major character from the Book of Acts was a woman. I have heard that Mormons did not know the Bible very well but that was surprising to me.

Actually, "there she goes…’ is a reference to ‘there she blows…’ which is a reference to the call of a whaler when the lookout spies the spout of a blowhard…er, whale, blowing hard.

However I find it interesting to note that you would expect ‘Stephen’ to be automatically associated with the scriptures. If that is true, then I should sign with my full name…Diana Christine. That should surely confuse people.

 

[Scriptorian]

Scriptorian, you are right about that one thing.

Oh, good. What’s that?

 

[Scriptorian]

Actually it was I, who was making a point. Let’s review

I received a well thought out, mature, and dignified Mormon response:

Now to prove my point (and prove you wrong) I need to list at least one historian and scientist who have been excommunicated for publishing the objective truth. So I did.

To repeat:

How does listing a historian and a scientist who were excommunicated prove that the Mormon Church is false? I thought it just meant that preaching heresy in any religion can get you kicked out of that religion. Does that mean that the Arians proved the Catholic Church false?

I guess I don’t follow… Oh, hold on. You’re not going to call me “dim” are you?

 

[Scriptorian]

Yes, “neither marry nor be married.” Be married. A person will not get married in heaven, and if they are married now they will not be married once there. How can this be misunderstood? The state of marriage simply will not exist in heaven. Marriage, by the clear words of our Lord, is not eternal.

My translation (KJV) says “neither marry nor be given in marriage.” Both are action words. Usually with such an important doctrine as marriage there would be others passages that explain it. Can you provide another one that might clear up translation differences?

 

[Scriptorian]

ABSOLUTELY!!! I think we may have more important things we’ll be doing anyway.

“I want to spend My Heaven doing good on earth.” St. Therese, of the Child Jesus, of the Holy Face

I have also heard many people say that “a heaven without my family is no heaven at all.” I would absolutely agree. Why would God focus so much attention on fidelity, chastity, sexual purity, and pure love if it will all end when we are dead.

Look into your heart as deeply as you can and tell me that you don’t “want” your family to be together forever, especially if they can all “make it” to heaven. Could you imagine your family with perfect resurrected bodies without sin and living with God? Is this not a righteous desire that comes from God?

 

[cothrige]

My translation (KJV) says “neither marry nor be given in marriage.” Both are action words. Usually with such an important doctrine as marriage there would be others passages that explain it. Can you provide another one that might clear up translation differences?

You don’t need anything like that. All you have to do is read the text. The entire text.

That day there came to him the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection; and asked him,
Saying: Master, Moses said: If a man die having no son, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up issue to his brother.
Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first having married a wife, died; and not having issue, left his wife to his brother.
In like manner the second, and the third, and so on to the seventh.
And last of all the woman died also.
At the resurrection therefore whose wife of the seven shall she be?* for they all had her.
And Jesus answering, said to them: You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.
For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married; but shall be as the angels of God in heaven.

What was our Lord asked here? Did they ask him how a woman could get married after she died? No. They asked which of seven husbands would the woman be married to when she died. And yet some would have us believe that the Lord answered by saying that she could not get an eighth husband once in heaven. Like that would have been a potential option entertained by anyone.

No Scriptorian, we don’t need any other passages to explain this very clear teaching. Which of the seven husbands is her husband in heaven? None of them. Why? Because there is no marriage in heaven. It is simply not eternal.

 

[Scriptorian]

There is/was never a Melchizedek Priesthood. Joseph Smith made it up. There has never been an Aaronic Priesthood in Christianity. Both are something “invented” in the Mormon Church

Made it up? Read Hebrews again, my friend (and Psalms):

4 The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. (Psalm 110:4)

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.
6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.
11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. (Hebrews 5:4-11)

 

[Scriptorian]

Did Peter have any title unique to himself?

Luke 11:49
John1:25
Act 13:1

Yes. How many times do Catholics have to quote the scripture to you? He was called “the Rock.”

 

[Scriptorian]

Gnostics (100BC)
Eboinites(100-400AD)
Montanism (140AD)
Marcionism (140AD)
Novationist (250AD)
Arianist (270AD)
Donatist (300AD)
Which one of these groups developed the canon of the New Testament?

Actually I think it was gleaned from the writings and recommendations of Irenaeus. I believe Irenaeus was inspired to include the books he did, truthfully. I have no problem with that.

 

[Stephen168]

How does listing a historian and a scientist who were excommunicated prove that the Mormon Church is false?

It doesn’t. History and science proves it to be false.

I thought it just meant that preaching heresy in any religion can get you kicked out of that religion. Does that mean that the Arians proved the Catholic Church false?

There were not ‘preaching’ heresy. Unless true history and science are heresy in the Mormon Church. Which was my point. Mormonism does not have history, reason or science. In fact, history and science prove the Mormon Church is not the true Church of Christ.

I guess I don’t follow… Oh, hold on. You’re not going to call me “dim” are you?

I don’t think you are dim, just dishonest.

 

[Stephen168]

Actually I think it was gleaned from the writings and recommendations of Irenaeus. I believe Irenaeus was inspired to include the books he did, truthfully. I have no problem with that.

No, you claimed the Catholic Church removed Books from the canon. I want you to tell me the non-Catholic group that made up the original canon.

OR–
Admit you made it up and it never happened

 

[Scriptorian]

oh yes, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does continue to use the names of various offices from the Bible, such as prophets, apostles, seventies, high priests, teachers, etc., however you will have a hard time proving they are really analogous, or continue the same rights and powers.

That’s actually the point of the whole matter. The scriptures were a starting point for Joseph Smith. God then taught him the rest of the details through the glorious principle of revelation. The scriptures can really only prove two things:

1. 
   *]The concepts/people/principles do in fact exist
   *]The Mormon Church is the only church with the courage (or as I would say the ability) to fill in the blanks

 

[Stephen168]

Yes. How many times do Catholics have to quote the scripture to you? He was called “the Rock.”

His named was changed from Simon to Peter/ Rock/Cephas. Did Peter have a unique TITLE?

 

[cothrige]

I have also heard many people say that “a heaven without my family is no heaven at all.” I would absolutely agree. Why would God focus so much attention on fidelity, chastity, sexual purity, and pure love if it will all end when we are dead.

Look into your heart as deeply as you can and tell me that you don’t “want” your family to be together forever, especially if they can all “make it” to heaven. Could you imagine your family with perfect resurrected bodies without sin and living with God? Is this not a righteous desire that comes from God?

But, you are using calls to emotions for your defense, and not revealed truth. Just because God gave us marriage for this life doesn’t mean it is eternal, or that it should be. In the next life God will be all things to all people, and I hardly think we will wish instead to have marriage to other people. The only reason people think so is because they haven’t any experience of the resurrection. They don’t know what it will be, and have to trust to their very limited imaginations, which include a strong emotional connection to their earthly relationships.

Of course, that is not to say that we won’t love our families in the resurrection. I am sure we will. I am sure we will be much closer to our spouse then than we are now, assuming our spouse is also there. And I am sure it will mean a great deal to us. But, it will not be what makes heaven heavenly, because thinking so would be to blaspheme God, who is the only good. Marriage is wonderful, but it will pale in comparison to what awaits us on the other side.

But, all this aside, one simly cannot avoid the clear teaching of the Lord. He was asked which husband the woman would be wife of in the next life, and he stated without equivocation that she would be wife of none of them. Marriage is not eternal. It ends with death.

 

[Scriptorian]

No, you claimed the Catholic Church removed Books from the canon. I want you to tell me the non-Catholic group that made up the original canon.

OR–
Admit you made it up and it never happened

I made it up…? Um… I’m not that old, Stephen.

I never said the church removed books from Canon. They compiled the “Canon” in the first place. Truth be told, Protestants are the ones who removed canonical writings. That is not to say that parts of the canonical books have not been changed or removed. There is a lot of confusion over many verses of the Bible.

Mormons have really only added scripture, not taken away anything.

 

[Scriptorian]

But, you are using calls to emotions for your defense, and not revealed truth. Just because God gave us marriage for this life doesn’t mean it is eternal, or that it should be. In the next life God will be all things to all people, and I hardly think we will wish instead to have marriage to other people. The only reason people think so is because they haven’t any experience of the resurrection. They don’t know what it will be, and have to trust to their very limited imaginations, which include a strong emotional connection to their earthly relationships.

Of course, that is not to say that we won’t love our families in the resurrection. I am sure we will. I am sure we will be much closer to our spouse then than we are now, assuming our spouse is also there. And I am sure it will mean a great deal to us. But, it will not be what makes heaven heavenly, because thinking so would be to blaspheme God, who is the only good. Marriage is wonderful, but it will pale in comparison to what awaits us on the other side.

But, all this aside, one simly cannot avoid the clear teaching of the Lord. He was asked which husband the woman would be wife of in the next life, and he stated without equivocation that she would be wife of none of them. Marriage is not eternal. It ends with death.

Did you find that second reference yet?

My point is that all “good things” are eternal. That is what the “good news” is all about! Jesus is not dead for “he is risen.” Our God is eternal. We are eternal. Families are eternal. The gospel is eternal.

Actually, you could say that in order for something to be “good” it must be eternal.

 

[diggerdomer]

Did you find that second reference yet?

My point is that all “good things” are eternal. That is what the “good news” is all about! Jesus is not dead for “he is risen.” Our God is eternal. We are eternal. Families are eternal. The gospel is eternal.

Actually, you could say that in order for something to be “good” it must be eternal.

Not exactly…according to the Bible creation is good (“God saw it was good…”) but that does not mean that all of creation is eternal.

 

[Scriptorian]

It doesn’t. History and science proves it to be false.

There were not ‘preaching’ heresy. Unless true history and science are heresy in the Mormon Church. Which was my point. Mormonism does not have history, reason or science. In fact, history and science prove the Mormon Church is not the true Church of Christ.

I don’t think you are dim, just dishonest.

Wow. Slam. That’s not very nice.

You think I am lying? I could perhaps come across as condescending, but never insincere. Look closer without your skeptic’s glasses on, and you will find that I am being as honest as I can possibly be with you. I want to share this stuff with all of you. I love teaching the truth of the scriptures.

I know that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not attractive to you as a religion or a lifestyle. Our culture may feel abrasive to you, our doctrines strange and new. But I have diligently studied the Book of Mormon, having read it nearly forty times and I can tell you that it is inspired of God. No man could write it, or translate it, without the help of God. I know that it is true. And no power on earth or in hell will ever be able to change the truth of it.

When the books are opened at the great and last day to judge the world, one of the books that will be laid before our eyes is the Book of Mormon. And we will all stand to account of how we received its message and the Prophet whom God prepared to bring it forth.

Yes, manipulating history and science to distort the truth is heresy. You can take your science and history and I will take mine, and we will see who was deceived at the last day.

 

[Scriptorian]

Not exactly…according to the Bible creation is good (“God saw it was good…”) but that does not mean that all of creation is eternal.

Yes it is. God’s creations are infinite and eternal and never ending. God continues to create worlds even now and will forever and ever.

 

[cothrige]

Did you find that second reference yet?

Unnecessary, as I responded in post #385.

My point is that all “good things” are eternal. That is what the “good news” is all about! Jesus is not dead for “he is risen.” Our God is eternal. We are eternal. Families are eternal. The gospel is eternal.

Yes, God is eternal, but that hardly makes everything he created eternal. That kind of logic doesn’t follow at all.

Actually, you could say that in order for something to be “good” it must be eternal.

Why do you say that? Personally I think ice cream is very good, but it is hardly eternal. No, what you are doing is to again argue from emotion and human attachment, and not from revelation. Christ denied eternal marriage very clearly. And yes, marriage is good, in a sense, but it is not the kind of good you are positing. For that we have only one good. It is as the Lord said: Why dost thou call me good? None is good but God alone.