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

[Scriptorian]

2+2=4. I will now appeal to authority and claim all mathematicians believe it to be a fact. I will now appeal to tradition and claim we have always believed it to be a fact. I will now appeal to the people (argumentum ad populum) and claim everyone I know believes this to be a fact. Because I appealed to the people, authority, and tradition it is clear by your reasoning; it is not a fact.

You are amazing.

Scientists used to believe that we evolved from a lightening strike on some seawater proteins. Now they believe we were “placed” here by extraterrestrials or landed as sponges from a meteorite. (no joke – that’s the latest from the scientific community) They claim evolution to be an indisputable fact. Over 2/3 of the world believe in either Allah or Buddha so we would be out voted pretty quickly based on the populist stance. And the oldest tradition of all is murder, war, and violence. These really have nothing to do whatsoever with the truth.

And as far as 2+2 goes my friend, rather than a fictitious universalism, there are millions of small children the world over, who know nothing about it. And yet they know more about the character of God than a man of your ignorance could imagine or think you know.

“Everyone I knows thinks it” is not valid evidence to establish the truth.

 

[Scriptorian]

…Oh and to continue, why DO you depend on a man to pull you through the veil and why IS it ok for a man to have another wife in CK???

Sounds like something much worse than “googley moogley” to me! More like a rabid teenage boy fantasy—well, Jsmith WAS 14 when he had his first “vision”–although there are several different accounts of that too.

sigh…

Oh, my… Wasn’t that just a bigoted rant? I think you covered sexism, anti-Mormonism, and age discrimination all in one swoop.

Sweetnay, you are the reason so many liberal atheists slam religious people. You have to be careful of that kind of talk. If we want the world to be tolerant of religion, we must show that we are tolerant of each other. At least tolerant enough to engage in civil discussion that allows us to disagree and debate with the constant understanding that we want all peaceable people to have the freedom to believe and worship according to their conscience.

Don’t make this a “you are a bigot so I’m going to be more of bigot” type of exercise… Please.

 

[Scriptorian]

ok…

I still don’t see a Melchizedek Priesthood. If there were, no earthly human would qualify.

Umm… Melchizedek qualified. Thus “a priest after the order of Melchizedek.”

 

[Scriptorian]

Neither do I, at least not the Mormon version. The high priest has always been the one who makes atonement on behalf of the people. That is his sole function as high priest. Under the Aaronic priesthood, the high priest makes annual sacrifices in the Jerusalem temple and carries the blood of the lamb into the Holy of Holies (the one time of the year that a human can enter that place). Under the Melchizedek priesthood, Jesus (our Great High Priest) is both high priest and sacrificial Lamb and carries his own blood into the heavenly holy of holies, putting and end to temple worship, animal sacrifice, and opens the holy of holies (the place where God dwells) to all who come to Him (as symbolized by the rending of the temple veil when Jesus died on the cross). The new holy of holies on earth is now open to all (instead of being limited to the high priest, who could enter only once per year) and is the sanctuary in every Catholic church, where Christ’s eternal sacrifice is re-enacted every day (except on Good Friday). As the holy of holies, it is the place where heaven and earth meet. It is the place where Christ, our great High Priest, continually offers us his body and blood in the form of bread and wine. We can receive Him every day if we choose to, and you can too if you become a Catholic. That is His promise to you.

This is the common thread running through all of these verses. They describe the emergence of a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek who offers bread and wine and makes a “once and for all” atonement for sins. Do Mormon high priests do that? No? Why not? Are they not high priests, just like Jesus? Why, then, do they not do what Jesus does with His priesthood? The lower (Aaronic) priesthood was associated with the Old Covenant that brought reconciliation with God through the sacrifice of animals in the Jewish temple and was held by many men (only one of whom could enter God’s presence in the holy of holies); the higher (Melchizedek) priesthood is associated with the one, eternal, and infinite sacrifice and and is held by only One person - Jesus, the sacrificial Lamb of God and author of the New Covenant in his blood, whose infinite act opened the holy of holies to everyone, so anyone could enter God’s presence. What a wonderful gift!

NS

A thoughtful response, and so much of it is correct. However, I would say that you misunderstand the purpose of the Holy of Holies. You explained that this Holiest Place is not heaven, but it represents heaven. That is true. But it is also where God would literally come down and speak to his high priests. It is where heaven and earth connect. It is where the glory of God can dwell and only those who both have authority and are fully cleansed can come. It is also in the temple. Not in a church meeting place (no matter how fancy or gold plated it might be). The Holy of Holies is the highest place on earth–not because it is on a mountain, but because it is where God visits his House.

Aside from some pagan transubstantiation ritual, where food turns into flesh, how exactly does God visit your Catholic churches when so many are unworthy to be in his presence. Our churches are no different. We come to church to become worthy. Sinners of all stripes are welcome to attend. And when each of us has been baptized and repented of our sins, we may participate in the Holy Supper. Our church worship prepares us for our temple worship.

But to enter the House of Lord, the time for developing worthiness is past.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Aside from some pagan transubstantiation ritual, where food turns into flesh, how exactly does God visit your Catholic churches when so many are unworthy to be in his presence. Our churches are no different. We come to church to become worthy. Sinners of all stripes are welcome to attend. And when each of us has been baptized and repented of our sins, we may participate in the Holy Supper. Our church worship prepares us for our temple worship.

But to enter the House of Lord, the time for developing worthiness is past.

Could you explain to me how this contemptuous remark in anyway goes along with your admonishment here:

Oh, my… Wasn’t that just a bigoted rant? I think you covered sexism, anti-Mormonism, and age discrimination all in one swoop.

Sweetnay, you are the reason so many liberal atheists slam religious people. You have to be careful of that kind of talk. If we want the world to be tolerant of religion, we must show that we are tolerant of each other. At least tolerant enough to engage in civil discussion that allows us to disagree and debate with the constant understanding that we want all peaceable people to have the freedom to believe and worship according to their conscience.

I for one don’t find anything civil in your remarks about the Eurcharist.

 

[sweetnay]

Oh, my… Wasn’t that just a bigoted rant? I think you covered sexism, anti-Mormonism, and age discrimination all in one swoop.

Sweetnay, you are the reason so many liberal atheists slam religious people. You have to be careful of that kind of talk. If we want the world to be tolerant of religion, we must show that we are tolerant of each other. At least tolerant enough to engage in civil discussion that allows us to disagree and debate with the constant understanding that we want all peaceable people to have the freedom to believe and worship according to their conscience.

Don’t make this a “you are a bigot so I’m going to be more of bigot” type of exercise… Please.

And how was that bigoted? More red herrings to avoid directly answering questions.

Please

 

[Scriptorian]

No, I will refute any LDS interpretation by simply pointing to the question, which you have continued to ignore. The Lord was not asked will the woman get married in the next world, but which man will be her husband. She had been married seven times already, and they wanted to know which would be her husband. The only way you can go on about whether a word means an action, or whether one can reasonably understand “shall neither be married” as one way or another is by ignoring that he was not asked about getting married, but being married.

No, they wished to catch the Lord in a contradiction. The text itself is prefaced this way: And there came to him some of the Sadducees, who deny that there is any resurrection… Being carnal people, they believed that any resurrection would be entirely carnal and so people’s marriages in this life would have to be dealt with in the next. To their mind this created an obvious contradiction, since she was married to seven men and couldn’t possibly have seven husbands in heaven.

There was no such teaching. The Saducees denied the resurrection altogether, much less eternal marriage. The Lord also didn’t teach it, as is clear, and simply and flatly denied anything even remotely like it. You simply have to accept the facts. The Lord was presented with a clear question which bears directly on marriage in the resurrection, and not only did he refuse to expound any such teaching at all, or even hint at it, he instead denied it. Your readings of these passages are just entirely impossible.

I, too, like the Spanish better. Nice one Parker!!

But I must chime in and say this. Jesus didn’t answer the question. You tell me where he answered it. He didn’t.

The Jewish tradition (and that of the Pharisees), of course, was that the wife would belong to the first husband. That is why the brothers would raise up seed for him. This would be his family in heaven.

The Sadducees were trying to trick Jesus into a tired and worn out debate about the resurrection. A debate they probably knew how to navigate well. But Jesus knew they were trying to catch him in his words, so he caught them in theirs instead. They said, “in the resurrection, whose wife would she be?”

So, he responded, “in the resurrection, people neither marry nor are given in marriage.” This statement answered several questions at once. First, there is a resurrection. Second, marriage is not performed “in the resurrection.” And third, “Yes, I know what you are trying to do, Sadducees!”

To interpret anything more than this is intellectually forcing a conclusion. Jesus then closed the door on Sadducee doctrine altogether with his next statement about God being the God of the living. Brilliant!

Jesus was not answering the question, “Are people married in heaven?” He wasn’t answering the question, “Does everyone become an angel in the resurrection?” He also wasn’t answering the question, “Will anyone get her at all (since there aren’t married people there)?”

So, we can stop debate on the matter and either look for a different scripture or accept that we are all trying to prove too much about marriage from a scripture that is clearly about the resurrection.

 

[Scriptorian]

Could you explain to me how this contemptuous remark in anyway goes along with your admonishment here:

I for one don’t find anything civil in your remarks about the Eurcharist.

There wasn’t anything uncivil about it. I disagree with the Catholic idea that wafers turn into Christ’s flesh and wine turns into his blood. It’s a doctrinal disagreement. I think that doctrine is a post-scriptural idea that has Pagan roots and is false.

I wasn’t calling your mother fat or saying you’re a wart covered hag. (I am sure both you and your mother are lovely… ) I was disagreeing with your doctrine. Do you see the difference?

 

[Scriptorian]

And how was that bigoted? More red herrings to avoid directly answering questions.

Please

C’mon, Sweetnay! Red herrings…? Really…? Just because you don’t like my answers doesn’t mean I am not answering.

By the way, what was the question again?

 

[sweetnay]

Why don’t you worship heavenly mother and why is a woman dependent on a man to pull her through the veil?

BTW, you may want to look up sarcasm versus bigotry, would an online dictionary suffice?

You checked your civility at the door the day you came over here. I would also assert you took these threads to an entirely new level of ridiculousness by claiming you have actual evidence from the BOM under your bed-or wherever you’re hiding it (giggle).
Come on!! What do you take us for???
Everything I said was true, not bigoted.
Shall we review?
-you don’t worship H.M.
-a woman needs a man to pull her through the veil
-Jmith was 14 at time of FV
-there are several diff FV accounts

My personal opinion: 'rabid teenage-boy fantasy"-although it makes a lot of sense when dissecting the person and history of Jsmith.
I’ve noticed the “rabid” use of red herrings among lds, won’t work here. Friend.

 

[sweetnay]

Oh, and keep blaming me for liberal atheists, (oweeee) feel better?

Good.

 

[zaffiroborant]

There wasn’t anything uncivil about it. I disagree with the Catholic idea that wafers turn into Christ’s flesh and wine turns into his blood. It’s a doctrinal disagreement. I think that doctrine is a post-scriptural idea that has Pagan roots and is false.

I wasn’t calling your mother fat or saying you’re a wart covered hag. (I am sure both you and your mother are lovely… ) I was disagreeing with your doctrine. Do you see the difference?

Yes I do understand the difference, what I’m saying is your post doesn’t meet your requirements for civil discussion. There was no discussion of doctrine in that paragraph. Your comments about Catholicism were flippant and disrespectful. Also no discussion of doctrine when talking about how your church has a Holy Supper and makes you worthy.

 

[Stephen168]

I still don’t see a Melchizedek Priesthood. If there were, no earthly human would qualify.
Scriptorian;5094126:

Umm… Melchizedek qualified. Thus "a priest after the order of Melchizedek

."

Hebrews 7:1-3 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

No earthly human would qualify that is why there have never been a Melchizedek Priesthood until Mormonism just made it up.

 

[sweetnay]

No earthly human would qualify that is why there have never been a Melchizedek Priesthood until Mormonism just made it up.

Correct. Jsmith took the WORD “melchizedek” and created his own version. Sorry, taking words out of the Bible and creating your own version doesn’t count, another example would be the word “temple”-also found in the Bible however resembling NOTHING close to the masonic based mormon temple/ceremonies we see today-although they’d have you believe otherwise. Lds practice a form of “twistianity” and their false priesthood is a prime example.

 

[Jerusha]

You know what? Most of the Catholics participating here know Catholic doctrine, are familiar with Mormonism, and are not going to get converted by all your arguing. You, in contrast, could get converted by hanging out here. Unless you want to risk that , I suggest you leave us alone.

I note that as more people drop out of this five year conversation, which has become incredibly silly, there are fewer active threads about it. Think about it.

I thank the LDS people who have participated, you have helped the pro-Catholic (which you call anti-Mormon) movement immensely.

Officially now an observer.
Jerusha

 

[Stephen168]

“Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures.” Mormon history goes back to Father Adam………
We claim, and I will tell you it is true, that all righteous men from Adam onward were Christians…………

You may believe this as a matter of faith, but as a fact of history it is not.

We had Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus Christ as our founders.

You only have Joseph Smith as your founder in 1830. Christ started his Church 1800 years before; free of polygamy, mark of Cain, blood atonement, and temples.

History, science, and reason are against Joseph Smith. All you have is faith.
A Catholic has it all.

 

[Stephen168]

A thoughtful response, and so much of it is correct. However, I would say that you misunderstand the purpose of the Holy of Holies. You explained that this Holiest Place is not heaven, but it represents heaven. That is true. But it is also where God would literally come down and speak to his high priests. It is where heaven and earth connect. It is where the glory of God can dwell and only those who both have authority and are fully cleansed can come. It is also in the temple.

Christ is the temple of the new covenant. (John 2:18-21)

………… transubstantiation ritual, where food turns into flesh, how exactly does God visit your Catholic churches…………

That is how God comes to us. It is the center of Christian worship since the time of Christ. We have Christ in the Eucharist while Mormons are still building temples. Christ is present in the Eucharist (body, soul, and divinity) just as Christ told us it was and how it has been taught by his Church since the beginning.

By the way, I’m glad you’re here to show us how “nice” Mormons can be.

 

[ParkerD]

No earthly human would qualify that is why there have never been a Melchizedek Priesthood until Mormonism just made it up.

Stephen,
I can see where you have taken the position that there are only two “high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek”–one being Melchizedek (who, if I understand what you highlighted and your logic, is still alive since he had no “end of life”–where is he, by the way?) and the other being Christ.

So you are saying that Abraham did not have the priesthood. Yet Abraham built altars and offered sacrifices. The Levitical priesthood offered the sacrifices for the children of Israel, correct? For you to assume Abraham had no priesthood is not an assumption that is consistent with the offering of sacrifices. They were done by a person having the authority to do it. Especially is this true of Abraham, who by offering his son Isaac on an altar pre-figured the sacrifice of the Son of God. Surely it would make sense to a Biblical student that Abraham had priesthood and thus could make that offering in complete similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten Son.

The context of Hebrews 7 makes clear that Christ had a greater priesthood than the Levitical priesthood, yet He received the priesthood not by His lineage (7:14-17,20-21) but because He made an oath. Why couldn’t Abraham have made an oath and received priesthood?

Abraham was given a multitude of promises concerning himself and his posterity. Why does it not seem logical to you that he held priesthood authority?

 

[ParkerD]

Stephen,
I also should mention that I took a few minutes this morning to read here, because I have been interested in the discussion points, but I now leave for soccer and family duties for most of the day, so I’ll check back tonight. Have a great day, all. We have beautiful weather where I’m at.

 

[NewSeeker]

A thoughtful response, and so much of it is correct. However, I would say that you misunderstand the purpose of the Holy of Holies. You explained that this Holiest Place is not heaven, but it represents heaven. That is true. But it is also where God would literally come down and speak to his high priests. It is where heaven and earth connect. It is where the glory of God can dwell and only those who both have authority and are fully cleansed can come. It is also in the temple. Not in a church meeting place (no matter how fancy or gold plated it might be). The Holy of Holies is the highest place on earth–not because it is on a mountain, but because it is where God visits his House.

Aside from some pagan transubstantiation ritual, where food turns into flesh, how exactly does God visit your Catholic churches when so many are unworthy to be in his presence. Our churches are no different. We come to church to become worthy. Sinners of all stripes are welcome to attend. And when each of us has been baptized and repented of our sins, we may participate in the Holy Supper. Our church worship prepares us for our temple worship.

But to enter the House of Lord, the time for developing worthiness is past.

There’s no way to “develop” worthiness, for none are righteous. None of us can “develop” perfection. The least degree of sinfulness cuts us off from God’s presence. That’s why, under the old covenant, only the High Priest was allowed into the Holy of Holies - and only on one day of the year. That was the only day that an unworthy person was allowed into God’s presence and the high priest knew it - he would cover his head and enter the sanctuary with great fear and trembling, knowing that he was literally entering the presence of the holy God. None can make themselves righteous. Righteousness is a gift of grace from God, and he grants that grace to whoever he wills. Under the new covenant, that grace is granted by participating in the seven sacraments of the church - which are vehicles of grace. As you said, the Holy of Holies is the place where heaven and earth meet. It is literally heaven on earth. Under the old covenant, that place was a room in the Jewish temple; under the new covenant, that place is the sanctuary in every Catholic and Orthodox church in communion with Rome. The sanctuary, with its altar, adornments, use of incense, etc., was consciously patterned after the Jewish temple by the earliest Christians because it was (and is) believed that that is the place where God dwells (the early christians did not pattern their places of worship after the Jewish synagogue! They copied the temple). It is the new holy of holies under the new covenant. Christ’s Real Presence is literally present and available in the sanctuary for those who desire Him and approach him in a state of grace (what Mormons would call “worthy”). Any validly baptized Christian, in communion with Rome, can approach God in his holy sanctuary and receive him sacramentally through the bread and the wine. God is substantially present in the species of bread and wine - body, blood, soul, and divinity. None are ever worthy to approach God unless God makes them so; they are made so by his grace, which is a free gift to those who, before they approach the altar to receive Christ, confess and are cleansed of any mortal sin to a priest, who stands in for Christ in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. It is Christ you are confessing to in the confessional; it is Christ who absolves and cleanses you from mortal sin. That is how people become “worthy” to enter God’s presence in the earthly holy of holies, not that they are ever truly worthy, which is why at the beginning of every mass we continue to confess our sins as a community and ask God for forgiveness and mercy, even after some of us have received the Sacrament of Reconciliation. That is also why, before we receive Jesus in the bread and wine, we say “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.” None of us are worthy, but God, in his mercy and through Christ, allows all of us now to approach him in the holy of holies. Jesus put an end to temple worship since the temple’s sole purpose was to house the holy of holies where the high priest would bring the blood of a spotless lamb into God’s presence as an offering for sin. Any Christian can now approach God in the holy of holies and commune with Him. This only occurs in a Catholic church. The temple never was (and still is not) a place where endowment rituals and eternal marriages were performed. It was the place where God dwelt in the holy of holies and where the sacrificial blood of a spotless lamb was brought once a year to atone for the sins of Israel. That place is now the sanctuary in every Catholic Church, where God dwells and where Jesus, who is both lamb and high priest, offers his own blood to God in an infinite act of sacrifice. Jesus continues to offer that sacrifice to God through the mass, in the person of the priest.

NS