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

  • Thread starter Thread starter deb1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The concept of transubstantiation, as a fully developed idea so named, did come along later. But the teaching that the Eucharist was literally Christ’s body and blood can be found in Christian writings much earlier than the 11th century. The earliest references to the teaching in non-biblical documents (Ignatius, Justin Martyr) are dated in the early second century. Both Jesus (directly) and Paul (indirectly) taught the same thing in the first century. It is an authentic Christian teaching and does date to the original Church (which was recognizably catholic by the end of the 1st century. The Catholic Church evolved out of the house churches described in Acts and in Paul’s letters. There is no evidence that supports anything to the contrary.

NS
That is not true. Transubstantiation has no scriptural basis. Neither Jesus nor Paul, nor any other New Testament writer taught it. Early Christian writers didn’t teach it either. They just employed the same scriptural language in their writings that the Catholic Church has traditionally (and incorrectly) interpreted in a literal way, in spite of scriptural evidence to the contrary.

zerinus
 
That is not true. Transubstantiation has no scriptural basis. Neither Jesus nor Paul, nor any other New Testament writer taught it. Early Christian writers didn’t teach it either. They just employed the same scriptural language in their writings that the Catholic Church has traditionally (and incorrectly) interpreted in a literal way, in spite of scriptural evidence to the contrary.

zerinus
Of course it has a scriptural basis. The word transubstantiation is not in the Bible, but the concept most certainly is. The early church fathers also mentioned it. Jesus said if do not eat his flesh and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Some of his disciples were very offended by this statement, a clear indication that they took him literally. Jesus did not disabuse them of the notion, a clear indication that he meant it literally. Paul said eating Christ’s flesh and drinking his blood unworthily brings damnation to your soul. That’s because it’s a sacrilege to consume Jesus body and blood if you are not in a state of grace. You are bringing Jesus into an unclean temple by doing so. There’s no sacrilege when you consume little pieces of Wonder Bread and some water. How could there be? That’s a very reasonable interpretation of the scriptures, which has the benefit of being supported by the authority of the Magisterium of the Church. Your interpretation is only supported by your reliance on Joseph Smith, who was not a prophet and had no credibility at all to be an authoritative interpreter of scripture.

NS
 
Of course it has a scriptural basis. The word transubstantiation is not in the Bible, but the concept most certainly is. The early church fathers also mentioned it. Jesus said if do not eat his flesh and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Some of his disciples were very offended by this statement, a clear indication that they took him literally.
Yes, they took it literally, but later in the same context Jesus explains that it was not meant to be taken literally.
Jesus did not disabuse them of the notion, a clear indication that he meant it literally.
He did that because they did not beleive in Him, and He wanted to get rid of them. But later on He did clarify what He meant.
Paul said eating Christ’s flesh and drinking his blood unworthily brings damnation to your soul.
And he did not mean it literally. That is made clear in context. I suggest in the future you quote scripture directly, rather than telling us what you think it says.
Your interpretation is only supported by your reliance on Joseph Smith, who was not a prophet and had no credibility at all to be an authoritative interpreter of scripture.
Your interpretation is only supported by your reliance on the Magisterium, who have no credibility at all to be an authoritative interpreter of scripture.

zerinus
 
My position is there is only one; Jesus Christ.
Or.der 'o.rd-*r\ n [MF ordre, fr. ML & L; ML ordin-, ordo ecclesiastical order,]fr. L, arrangement, group, class; akin to L ordiri to lay the warp, begin. I want a horse on the order of an appaloosa.
The ‘order of Melchizedek’ means someone like Melchizedek. The author of Hebrews reminds us how Christ was like Melchizedek in Chapter 7:1-3 – Melchizedek appears without father, mother, or children, and was a priest always. Melchizedek is compared to the divine Christ, the Son of Man; who was born without earthly parents, or children, and was a priest always. The Levitical priesthood past down through one tribe and Christ was not of that tribe. Melchizedek was not of that tribe either.

The oath was God’s promise to us. (Psalm 110:3)

He did not hold Melchizedek priesthood authority because there is no such thing. Melchizedek suddenly appears with no genealogy; no parents or children gives Abram bread and wine; blesses Abram, then disappears. But God promises a High Priest like him; not from Aaron but straight from God.
This was actually a mistranslation of Hebrews. It should have parenthesis before verse 7 and after verse 8 in this manner:
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 5:6-11)
Verse 7 and 8 refer to Melchizedek. Verse 6 and 9 refer to Christ.

Christ did not need to “learn obedience” because he was already perfectly obedient. With this idea in mind, Melchizedek was actually a mortal man similar to Abraham. Mormon and Jewish traditions sometimes believe that Melchizedek was actually Shem, the Son of Noah. Thus the reference to Melchizedek’s father (Noah would have been quite the father to have…)

Regardless, the priesthood of Melchizedek was the priesthood of Noah and the priesthood of Noah’s great grandfather Enoch. Enoch received this priesthood, if the scriptures are clear, while Adam was still alive. Melchizedek gave this priesthood and authority to Abraham when he visited him and when Abraham gave him tithes.

So, thus there was an unbroken line of this Higher Priesthood from Adam to Abraham. This priesthood was again an unbroken line until Moses who received it from his father-in-law Jethro.

After Moses, the higher priesthood of Melchizedek was taken away because the Children of Israel loved Egypt more than God and a lesser priesthood remained through Aaron’s posterity. This is the priesthood that administered the rites of the tabernacle and Solomon’s temple. This was the priesthood that John the baptist held as the “seed of Aaron.” See the reference to his parents here:
5 ¶ THERE was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. (Luke 1:5-6)
It is why Christ came to him to be baptized. John held the priesthood of Aaron and the authority to baptize. In fact John was the High Priest after the order of Aaron and all of Judea came to be baptized of him:
4 And the same John had his raiment of camel’s hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.
5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. (Matthew 3:4-6)
But John always said he was only preparing the way for one who was greater:
11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: (Matthew 3:11)
This, in part, was because Jesus was given the Melchizedek or Higher Priesthood and was a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. By this authority, Jesus could not only baptize with water, but also with fire and with the Holy Ghost. This was also the power to heal the sick, raise the dead, and cast out unclean spirits.

Jesus gave this authority to Peter and the apostles here:
Code:
1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, ***he gave them power*** against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. (Matthew 10:1-4)
Peter gave this power to Paul, probably at this time:
1 Paul, an apostle…
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace,
16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother. (Galatians 1:1,15-19)
That is my guess…

Then, of course, we believe this same power was given to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in 1829 by Peter, James, and John. This priesthood has since been passed down to every Melchizedek priesthood holder throughout the whole church.

Thus we believe that our authority traces not just back to Christ, but back to Adam who received the authority from God himself.
 
Scriptorian - I forgot to respond to one of your points.
I forgot prayer! The incense of the temple represented the prayers of the people. We have that, too.
But you don’t have incense itself! Why not?

NS
 
Scriptorian, you are very close to becoming a very good Catholic! I think we are in agreement about the role of grace and the sacraments in our salvation. The only difference is where we place our trust; who has the authority to administer those sacraments. Of course, you know where I stand. We Catholics believe that it is the Holy Spirit that converts and is the instrument through which grace is given to us. You never know…keep coming here and the Holy Spirit will work on you to bring you into full communion with God’s people.
You are likewise close to becoming a good Mormon. 😉
True, masonic elements were selectively incorporated into LDS temple rituals (and temple symbolism), and as you say they did not inform every LDS temple rite. But it is a fact that Joseph Smith did rely on his experiences in Nauvoo’s masonic lodge to craft the first endowment ritual. Those selected by Joseph to be the first participants noticed the obvious “borrowings” right away (hand clasps, signs and tokens, square and compass); those men were also initiated in the Nauvoo Masonic lodge. Joseph told them that Masonry preserved a corrupted temple tradition derived from Solomon’s temple. There is no evidence for that, however. Joseph made that part up or borrowed it from Masonic tradition (which asserts the same thing). Solomon’s temple was a place of animal sacrifice and atonement where Israel’s king was anointed and where atonement was made for the people. The rites involved blood, altars of incense and sacrifice, and the bread of the Presence. The evidence for the precise nature of those rites is sparse; but there is zero evidence from ancient times in support of the idea that Solomon’s temple was adorned with squares and compasses, and that handshakes, signs, and tokens were given. There is no evidence for these things at all, apart from what Joseph Smith and other masons say about Solomon’s temple. But that’s not evidence.
Well, this is a topic for an extremely lengthy discussion. So we’ll leave it at that for now.
Finally, ancient Jewish rites did not include eternal sealings, let alone rites found in the LDS temple endowment. Those were all innovations from Joseph Smith - the latter based on masonry, the former probably derived from kabbalism and hermeticism, which Joseph likely learned from Alexander Neibaur, his Hebrew teacher, who was known to have kabbalistic texts in his position (including the Zohar, on which some of the King Follett discourse was apparently based). Hermeticism and kabbalism both included the idea of the alchemical marriage, whereby participants would be divinized. Gnosticism and its hermetic and kabbalistic progeny are the likely source of LDS eternal marriage and eternal progression theology. There is some evidence for the true 19th Century origin of Joseph Smith’s temple innovations, but there is no evidence that they derived from ancient Jewish temple rites. That’s a Mormon assumption for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
Okay, so let’s get to the meat of this issue. What are the similarities between LDS temples and ancient Jewish temples?

Let’s see if I can do this off the top of my head:


  1. *]Both are very symbolic and point the mind to Jesus Christ
    *]Both use the idea of progression to enter God’s presence
    *]Both have a veil
    *]Both teach the idea that angels (cherubim) guard the way to the presence of the Lord
    *]Both require washing, anointing, and clothing in holy vestments to enter the Holy Place (compare Exodus 28 to Mormon clothing sometime)
    *]Both are administered by priesthood authority
    *]Both focus on the creation, the fall of Adam, and the means of returning to God’s presence through ordinances
    *]Both are considered the highest and holiest places on earth
    *]Both require sacrifice (though the nature of the sacrifice is different due to the grace of Jesus Christ – as you have already explained)
    *]Both are places of light
    *]Both are ornamented with the best that the people could provide
    *]Both are considered the House of the Lord
    *]Both have the phrase “Holiness to the Lord The House of the Lord” written on their walls
    *]Both have a basin for washings resting on the backs of twelve “oxen”
    *]Both have multiple altars including one in the Holiest Place (the ark of the covenant was an altar)
    *]Both were built and then “dedicated” or blessed with a special prayer
    *]Both are places where attendants offered sacred prayers
    *]Both use white clothing while performing certain ordinances

    How is that to start?
 
]Yes, they took it literally, but later in the same context Jesus explains that it was not meant to be taken literally
If you’re referring to “It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life”, Jesus did not say: “I was just kidding; you don’t really have to consume my flesh to be saved. Come back!” He said “the spirit…gives life; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” Jesus was telling the disciples to heed his words (which he had just spoken regarding the necessity of eating his flesh and blood), as those words will bring those who heed them spirit and life. So, if you want spirit and life within you, you must heed his words and consume the Bread of Life - Jesus himself in the Eucharist.
He did that because they did not beleive in Him, and He wanted to get rid of them. But later on He did clarify what He meant.
Really? Jesus wanted to get rid of them? What kind of Jesus do you believe in? I believe in the Jesus that said “Come, follow me”. I don’t believe he wanted to get rid of them.
And he did not mean it literally. That is made clear in context. I suggest in the future you quote scripture directly, rather than telling us what you think it says.
As I said above, in context, Jesus did mean for us to take his words literally.
Your interpretation is only supported by your reliance on the Magisterium, who have no credibility at all to be an authoritative interpreter of scripture.
The Magisterium of the Church is the authoritative interpreter of scripture. This is so since the Catholic Church preserves the original apostolic teaching. There was no Great Apostasy.

NS
 
Scriptorian - I forgot to respond to one of your points.

But you don’t have incense itself! Why not?

NS
Not sure. Probably for the same reason we do not have the menorah or the shewbread. What we do have in the place of incense is pretty marvelous! I wish I could properly describe it for you. Maybe someday…
 
Not sure. Probably for the same reason we do not have the menorah or the shewbread. What we do have in the place of incense is pretty marvelous! I wish I could properly describe it for you. Maybe someday…
I was endowed in the Jordan River Temple in 1985 and married in the SLC Temple in 1990. I know what you would describe for me already. But thank you for the kind offer.

NS
 
I was endowed in the Jordan River Temple in 1985 and married in the SLC Temple in 1990. I know what you would describe for me already. But thank you for the kind offer.

NS
I suppose you would be familiar with prayer in the temple then… 😉

I do have a question for you, though. How come everyone on this thread is a “former” Mormon? I am not a former Catholic or anything, and I don’t think these other Mormon folks are either. Maybe you could explain your perspective on it. It may not be everyone, I suppose, but quite a few…

And am I the only one not from Utah? All of you out there not from Utah give a shout out!! 🙂
 
I do have a question for you, though. How come everyone on this thread is a “former” Mormon? I am not a former Catholic or anything, and I don’t think these other Mormon folks are either. Maybe you could explain your perspective on it. It may not be everyone, I suppose, but quite a few…
Well…I left the LDS church because everything about it and everyone I knew was incredibly phony. Perhaps those that have left were searching for the truth, which is not provided by the LDS religion.

The animosity that is felt by many former Mormons is due to the they way they were treated by the church and church members when they: dated outside the religion, married outside the religion or looked into other religions, etc.

Signed A former Mormon who was told that it was being set up to have her and her children sealed to another man because she married a Catholic. So much for families…
 
Well…I left the LDS church because everything about it and everyone I knew was incredibly phony. Perhaps those that have left were searching for the truth, which is not provided by the LDS religion.

The animosity that is felt by many former Mormons is due to the they way they were treated by the church and church members when they: dated outside the religion, married outside the religion or looked into other religions, etc.

Signed A former Mormon who was told that it was being set up to have her and her children sealed to another man because she married a Catholic. So much for families…
Man, some Mormons are a bunch of jerks… Don’t judge us by our worst specimen.

I think if I wasn’t Mormon (a very satisfied Mormon in case you haven’t noticed) I probably would become Catholic. It’s the only other defensible Christian religion, in my humble opinion.
 
Man, some Mormons are a bunch of jerks… Don’t judge us by our worst specimen.

I think if I wasn’t Mormon (a very satisfied Mormon in case you haven’t noticed) I probably would become Catholic. It’s the only other defensible Christian religion, in my humble opinion.
When I became a Catholic last year, my (former) Mormon bishop was very nice about it. My wife’s ward was split and her new bishop was also very nice. Neither of them have suggested to my wife that she needs to find someone else to be sealed to (since our sealing is now null and void). So, not all Mormons are like the jerk described above.

I can’t speak for other Mormons, Scriptorian, but I’m a former Mormon and I’m here because I’m a Catholic now. I hang out on the non-Catholic religions forum since I’m a former Mormon and there are lots of threads by and about Mormons. Despite my decision to become a Catholic, it’s difficult to completely leave something behind that was part and parcel of the air you breathed for over 40 years (dated from my first memories). It still is part of my life since my wife and sons still go. And, yes, I came from Utah, although I left the state in '88. Actually, only 11 of my 43 years were spent living in Utah. So maybe I’m not “from Utah” after all.

It’s funny that you say if you were to leave the Mormon Church, you’d be Catholic. That’s exactly what I did in part because of that statement in “A Marvelous Work and a Wonder” speaking to the issue that Protestants come from Catholicism and are either apostate with Catholicism or cut off from the truth if Catholicism is true. That was ingrained in me at a young age by parents and church leaders, ironically enough…lol! As far back as I could remember, it was either the Restoration of the Catholic Church. So naturally, given my belief in the need for authority and priesthood, when I decided Mormonism wasn’t true (and went through my atheist phase) I gave Catholicism a look.

NS
 
When I became a Catholic last year, my (former) Mormon bishop was very nice about it. My wife’s ward was split and her new bishop was also very nice. Neither of them have suggested to my wife that she needs to find someone else to be sealed to (since our sealing is now null and void). So, not all Mormons are like the jerk described above.

I can’t speak for other Mormons, Scriptorian, but I’m a former Mormon and I’m here because I’m a Catholic now. I hang out on the non-Catholic religions forum since I’m a former Mormon and there are lots of threads by and about Mormons. Despite my decision to become a Catholic, it’s difficult to completely leave something behind that was part and parcel of the air you breathed for over 40 years (dated from my first memories). It still is part of my life since my wife and sons still go. And, yes, I came from Utah, although I left the state in '88. Actually, only 11 of my 43 years were spent living in Utah. So maybe I’m not “from Utah” after all.

It’s funny that you say if you were to leave the Mormon Church, you’d be Catholic. That’s exactly what I did in part because of that statement in “A Marvelous Work and a Wonder” speaking to the issue that Protestants come from Catholicism and are either apostate with Catholicism or cut off from the truth if Catholicism is true. That was ingrained in me at a young age by parents and church leaders, ironically enough…lol! As far back as I could remember, it was either the Restoration of the Catholic Church. So naturally, given my belief in the need for authority and priesthood, when I decided Mormonism wasn’t true (and went through my atheist phase) I gave Catholicism a look.

NS
“A Marvelous Work and a Wonder”!! So that’s where that is from. Interestingly, it is also something that is ingrained in me, and I feel the same way. It’s either restoration or origination (Catholicism) because of the authority question. Exactly!

How did you overcome the apostasy question? What exactly was the tipping point for you? Was it doctrinal or just an emotional detachment?

For appaloosablue it was obviously the unkind remarks of someone. For Rebecca it seems to have her study about the polygamy of the early church. Someone else on here was skeptical of the translation of Abraham.

For me, these questions are not hard to answer, unless you decide that Joseph Smith was not a prophet and that the Book of Mormon is false. Unlike Stephen’s belief, I don’t think history, science, and tradition are the marks of a true religion. I think the marks of a true religion are power, testimony, scripture, and an enlightening of the soul. I must also add in true charity (the Pauline/Mormon definition). Jesus says also that signs will follow them that believe. I have seen those signs here among the Church of Jesus Christ, NS. Can Satan really falsify such things?

So, I guess my question is how did you decide that Joseph Smith was a false prophet and the Book of Mormon was not true?
 
That is not true. Transubstantiation has no scriptural basis…
I normally refrain from commenting on the Eucharist, as I don’t consider it proper for such profane discussion. But, as regards the scriptural basis of our belief, I would quote only one thing.
Take ye, and eat. This is my body.
When God says that something is, it is.
 
I do have a question for you, though. How come everyone on this thread is a “former” Mormon? I am not a former Catholic or anything, and I don’t think these other Mormon folks are either.
Sorry, but I am not a former Mormon, and so I have no personal axe to grind here at all. I just found the topic of this thread interesting and so have taken part. Been learning something too, I have to say.
 
Yes, they took it literally, but later in the same context Jesus explains that it was not meant to be taken literally.
Do you mean John 6? Where does he say that his words were meant to be taken in any way other than literally?
 
Sorry, but I am not a former Mormon, and so I have no personal axe to grind here at all. I just found the topic of this thread interesting and so have taken part. Been learning something too, I have to say.
I didn’t think you were, cothrige. I can kinda tell for the most part. (except with NewSeeker I wasn’t completely sure)

I find it interesting, too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top