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

[mormonboy]

I’m not sure what you mean ‘the true one’; it seems vague to me. If you mean the true Church started by Jesus Christ, then yes it is a historical fact the Catholic Church was started by Christ. The Catholic Church can trace its history continuously back to Christ. There is no science that has shown the Catholic Church not to be the Church started by Christ himself.

Matthew 23:37
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Acts 3:21
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.

I just don’t see how the church could continue when the Lord and his servants were martyred, slain, and tormented. Jesus Christ’s organization was lost shortly after the ascension of Christ. A need for a restoration was needed to maintain the same spirit of worship Jesus Christ established as he walked among mankind.

The concept of an apostasy is nothing knew to Christianity unless it is just not understood. Christ taught apostasy in the parable of the husbandmen. Mathew 12:1-10. It was a pattern of ancient biblical history and was bound to happen once again.

 

[mormonboy]

as compared to what?

during its first 200 years Islam’s growth dwarfed that!
but let’s look at apples to apples and compare other US religions founded during that genreal time period and see how they did:

assemblies of God didn’t get started until 1901 (Topeka, KS) and has 60Million members worldwide

a closer example would be Seventh Day Adventists who got started in 1863 and also claimed to be led by prophecy and now has 16 million members

why the church of Scientology (which didn’t get started until 1952) claims 8 million members worldwide!

Had Brigham Young not been able to basically found his own nation in a remote location and inculcate an entire generation of people into a culture that he ruled absolutely, Mormons would be no more prevalent than Shakers. even with that their only real growth is through birth these days and that appears to be losing ground to those who resign or just “quit”.

**I fail to see how mormon membership numbers have any bearing at all on it’s “truth”./**QUOTE]

To repeat what was already said… Nobody said it does have anything to do with ‘truth.’ You put words in my mouth.

 

[NewSeeker]

Matthew 23:37
I just don’t see how the church could continue when the Lord and his servants were martyred, slain, and tormented.

The Lord’s servants weren’t all martyred or slain. The Apostles appointed bishops to be their successors and there have been bishops in an unbroken line of succession teaching the apostolic tradition since then. There was no Apostasy.

Jesus Christ’s organization was lost shortly after the ascension of Christ.

No, Jesus Christ’s organization was not lost after the ascension. That same organization still exists today. It’s called the Catholic Church.

NS

 

[Stephen168]

I just don’t see how the church could continue when the Lord and his servants were martyred, slain, and tormented.

It has been estimated that 10 percent of the Roman Empire were members of the Catholic Church by the time of Constantine. Historians have estimated the population of the Empire to have been about 60 million people at that same time. It is amazing how a small group of a few hundred continued to grow and prosper while some of them were being martyred and tormented.

Jesus Christ’s organization was lost shortly after the ascension of Christ.

Of course that is a Mormon belief which has no basis in historical fact. All Mormonism has is: We don’t believe what Christians believe, so there must have been an apostasy; no history supports any of it. A near apostasy is recorded in the new testament (John 6:66) but never a total one.

 

[majick275]

To repeat what was already said… Nobody said it does have anything to do with ‘truth.’ You put words in my mouth.

then why do you keep throwing out the cliches? “That is why the church is one of the fastest growing churches huh?”

if you think i mischaracterized your statements then tell us what you meant by that.

 

[mormonboy]

then why do you keep throwing out the cliches? “That is why the church is one of the fastest growing churches huh?”

if you think i mischaracterized your statements then tell us what you meant by that.

Did you read my original post buddy? I was talking about answers to prayers as the attestation to the truthfulness of the this gospel… Keep muttering off arguments that don’t even matter though. It’ll get you really far in life knowing you challenged a Mormon today.

 

[mormonboy]

It has been estimated that 10 percent of the Roman Empire were members of the Catholic Church by the time of Constantine. Historians have estimated the population of the Empire to have been about 60 million people at that same time. It is amazing how a small group of a few hundred continued to grow and prosper while some of them were being martyred and tormented.

What time period was Constantine again? just wondering.

The fact an apostasy had happened in several accounts before is pretty historical. If that isn’t, what is?

 

[mormonboy]

The Lord’s servants weren’t all martyred or slain. The Apostles appointed bishops to be their successors and there have been bishops in an unbroken line of succession teaching the apostolic tradition since then. There was no Apostasy.

No, Jesus Christ’s organization was not lost after the ascension. That same organization still exists today. It’s called the Catholic Church.

NS

Is there a biblical account of the continued succession? This belief to me seems odd to me because there is no other account after the Book of Revelations. In fact, at the conclusion of the book, the end says.“The End.” (KJ version at least)

 

[Stephen168]

The fact an apostasy had happened in several accounts before is pretty historical.

You saying it happened doesn’t make it historical. Historical is names, dates, places, events.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

What if two people are not happily married on earth? Do they still have to be married in Heaven?

 

[RebeccaJ]

What if two people are not happily married on earth? Do they still have to be married in Heaven?

Reminds me of a mission story I heard once. The missionaries ask this woman if she is married, she says yes. They proceed to tell her the great news that she can be married forever, at which point, she angrily asks them why they think she would want to be with her sumbitch husband for eternity, and slams the door.

Sort of a reverse faith promoting story. Meaning, not likely to be true.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Reminds me of a mission story I heard once. The missionaries ask this woman if she is married, she says yes. They proceed to tell her the great news that she can be married forever, at which point, she angrily asks them why they think she would want to be with her sumbitch husband for eternity, and slams the door.

Sort of a reverse faith promoting story. Meaning, not likely to be true.

Ha Ha - I agree! Also, why would a woman want to keep having babies in heaven? I only had one kid, and that was enough for me! Some of this Mormon dogma stuff seems awfully sexist. Good for the man, but not for the woman.

 

[ParkerD]

What if two people are not happily married on earth? Do they still have to be married in Heaven?

Christine,
That’s a pertinent and very good question.
First, may I point out that I’ve never heard or read what the process will be of “having” spirit children, so your other post here isn’t pertinent. Mothers are nurturers more than they are child-bearers. No doubt spirit children will need plenty of nurturing.

I personally think one of the reasons marriage is so important is that working out all the natural differences in marriage relationships leads to far more selflessness (especially for the men), far more empathy, far better communication skills (especially for the men), far more forgiveness, far more sharing, etc., etc. than for a person who never crosses that bridge.

But if both marriage partners don’t go through that process willingly, then whichever one remains selfish is probably not repentant enough in other aspects of their life to qualify for going to the Celestial Kingdom.

I know I’ve learned far more from marriage and children than from any other aspect of life or relationship in life. 'Hope that helps from one male perspective (just one, speaking for no one else).

 

[RebeccaJ]

Ha Ha - I agree! Also, why would a woman want to keep having babies in heaven? I only had one kid, and that was enough for me! Some of this Mormon dogma stuff seems awfully sexist. Good for the man, but not for the woman.

In mormon belief, a woman is entirely dependent upon her husband to make it to their highest heaven. A unmarried person (male or female) will not be there. A woman without a husband to call her secret temple name will not be there. So, if the husband doesn’t make it, she is left without a person to call her name. At this point, she can hope to be reassigned to a male, in the afterlife, who can. Like some sort of weird property exchange.

I saw this all as ridiculous, as a teenager. Still do.

 

[dianaiad]

The myth is that 13 million people means the Mormon Church is the true Church of Christ. We know from science and history it is not.
History and science support the Catholic Church as the true Church of Christ whether it has a billion people or not.

I am very glad to see that you recognize the fallacious nature of ‘ad populum.’ The number of people who belong to a belief system has nothing at all to do with it’s truthfulness. I have no problem stipulating to that.

Of course, the fact that you apply it very selectively is also noted, as is the fact that you feel quite comfortable with using equally fallacious arguments to support the idea that Catholicism is true; appeal to authority (that science somehow proves Catholicism to be true…and that ‘reason’ whose reason? WHAT reason?]) and appeal to tradition (that the number of years that Catholicism has been around proves it to be true).

Now when you can identify fallacious arguments when you use them, you will be way ahead of the game here.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

In mormon belief, a woman is entirely dependent upon her husband to make it to their highest heaven. A unmarried person (male or female) will not be there. A woman without a husband to call her secret temple name will not be there. So, if the husband doesn’t make it, she is left without a person to call her name. At this point, she can hope to be reassigned to a male, in the afterlife, who can. Like some sort of weird property exchange.

I saw this all as ridiculous, as a teenager. Still do.

So marriage is really important to Mormons I guess. Although I’ve know some who have been divorced. It does seem to be a very earthy religion. In Catholicism, celibacy often brings people closer to God and makes them more spiritual, because they can devote most of their attention to Him, without the worldly things getting in their way.

I wonder what the Mormon answer is to question of the woman in the Bible who had 7 husbands who died. Who, according to them, would she be married to in heaven?

 

[dianaiad]

Ha Ha - I agree! Also, why would a woman want to keep having babies in heaven? I only had one kid, and that was enough for me! Some of this Mormon dogma stuff seems awfully sexist. Good for the man, but not for the woman.

Well, I had five. I found that actually being pregnant and giving birth was nothing at all to the ‘raising them right.’ part.

What I would like to know is this:where in the world did this weird idea that women would be eternally pregnant come from?

Not us. (shrug) Not that it would make any difference to those who want this to be a ‘true’ doctrine…people do love the ‘argument from spite’ fallacy.

 

[RebeccaJ]

So marriage is really important to Mormons I guess. Although I’ve know some who have been divorced. It does seem to be a very earthy religion. In Catholicism, celibacy often brings people closer to God and makes them more spiritual, because they can devote most of their attention to Him, without the worldly things getting in their way.

Mormons do not choose a celibate life. Of course, life sometimes sends a person on that path. But they don’t choose it as St. Paul taught.

I wonder what the Mormon answer is to question of the woman in the Bible who had 7 husbands who died. Who, according to them, would she be married to in heaven?

They somehow manage to say it means marriage continues in heaven. They believe Jesus was not giving a straight answer. (Sort of like a Mormon! )

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Well, I had five. I found that actually being pregnant and giving birth was nothing at all to the ‘raising them right.’ part.

What I would like to know is this:where in the world did this weird idea that women would be eternally pregnant come from?

Not us. (shrug) Not that it would make any difference to those who want this to be a ‘true’ doctrine…people do love the ‘argument from spite’ fallacy.

I thought there was something about spirit children in your dogma. Where do they come from? Why would you be married in heaven if you didn’t have children? What would be the point?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Well, I had five. I found that actually being pregnant and giving birth was nothing at all to the ‘raising them right.’ part.

What I would like to know is this:where in the world did this weird idea that women would be eternally pregnant come from?

Not us. (shrug) Not that it would make any difference to those who want this to be a ‘true’ doctrine…people do love the ‘argument from spite’ fallacy.

“eternal increase”

Probably has something to do with it.