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

[zerinus]

Do you mean John 6? Where does he say that his words were meant to be taken in any way other than literally?

I meant John 6:63 “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”

zerinus

 

[ParkerD]

Cothrige,
I enjoyed having the conversation with you.

To former LDS here,
The priesthood as a blessing to families intended by God for each one if fathers are faithful, eternal marriage, children of the covenant, the fruits of the Spirit, tithe blessings, fast blessings, personal inspiration and revelation that is undeniable–pure knowledge that Jesus is the Christ and that God lives and we are His children–place me in the realm of absolute surety so all these discussions have been good to get into the Bible which I love and try to explain it’s teachings to others, but as I go please be assured that here is one person who worlds without end knows what I know and would be in jeopardy of denying perfect light and knowledge if I turned away from it. Peace to you all.

 

[cothrige]

So when Jesus says in John 17:11:

“And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world,”

Does that mean that He literally is “no more in the world”? :whacky: :hypno:

zerinus

If the statements seem the same to you, so be it. I won’t debate it with you. I offered you the biblical foundation for belief, which as all things Christian, rests entirely on trusting that the Lord can do what he says. Some might have said, as you do, that it would be ridiculous to think that by saying Lazarus, come forth he could make a dead man would walk out of his tomb. Surely that would only be logical after all. But, we know that he is in fact Lord and God, and that he calleth those things that are not, as those that are. I rest very comfortably simply taking him at his word.

 

[cothrige]

I meant John 6:63 “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”

zerinus

I think we should break down what you seem to be saying here.

First, there is the statement that the flesh profiteth nothing. Okay, so whose flesh does he mean? Is it the flesh that he just spent about thirty verses commanding us to eat if we would have life? That flesh which would soon hang on a cross, rise up in three days, and ascend into heaven? Is that the flesh which you believe he says “profiteth nothing?” If so, then you are still in sin since that flesh couldn’t profit you redemption and salvation.

Next, we have the references to the spirit. I take by these you would think he means only a spiritual reality, which would perhaps be symbolic or figurative, and obviously must be less than literal. So, again I would ask which spirit does he mean? He says it quickeneth which means it gives life. I can tell you which Spirit that sounds like to me. What do you think? And would that mean that the Spirit is only a symbolic reality? Would you say that any scriptures about the Spirit are not literal teachings, but only figurative ones? And, are even spiritual things symbolic? Is a spiritual truth somehow less real than an earthly one? Just how does spirit equal a symbolic or figurative meaning rather than a literal one?

No, this says nothing at all about denying a literal understanding. His words were both spirit and life, and he meant them. The flesh which profits nothing, of course, is that which is not enlivened by the Spirit. That would be carnal flesh, or those who heard him and rejected him. They are carnal, and of this world, and they heard him as flesh without the Spirit and so rejected him. They can only think he meant canibalism, because that is all they can hear. They did not hear as the Apostles did. They surely did not understand either, but they heard in faith and trust, knowing that he had the words of eternal life.

 

[zerinus]

If the statements seem the same to you, so be it. I won’t debate it with you. I offered you the biblical foundation for belief, which as all things Christian, rests entirely on trusting that the Lord can do what he says. Some might have said, as you do, that it would be ridiculous to think that by saying Lazarus, come forth he could make a dead man would walk out of his tomb.

I say no such thing. I have no difficulty accepting the miracles of Jesus Christ. But I do have difficulty accepting a false miracle that never happened or happens, and no scripture ever said it happens.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

I think we should break down what you seem to be saying here.

First, there is the statement that the flesh profiteth nothing. Okay, so whose flesh does he mean? Is it the flesh that he just spent about thirty verses commanding us to eat if we would have life? That flesh which would soon hang on a cross, rise up in three days, and ascend into heaven? Is that the flesh which you believe he says “profiteth nothing?” If so, then you are still in sin since that flesh couldn’t profit you redemption and salvation.

Next, we have the references to the spirit. I take by these you would think he means only a spiritual reality, which would perhaps be symbolic or figurative, and obviously must be less than literal. So, again I would ask which spirit does he mean? He says it quickeneth which means it gives life. I can tell you which Spirit that sounds like to me. What do you think? And would that mean that the Spirit is only a symbolic reality? Would you say that any scriptures about the Spirit are not literal teachings, but only figurative ones? And, are even spiritual things symbolic? Is a spiritual truth somehow less real than an earthly one? Just how does spirit equal a symbolic or figurative meaning rather than a literal one?

No, this says nothing at all about denying a literal understanding. His words were both spirit and life, and he meant them. The flesh which profits nothing, of course, is that which is not enlivened by the Spirit. That would be carnal flesh, or those who heard him and rejected him. They are carnal, and of this world, and they heard him as flesh without the Spirit and so rejected him. They can only think he meant canibalism, because that is all they can hear. They did not hear as the Apostles did. They surely did not understand either, but they heard in faith and trust, knowing that he had the words of eternal life.

Okay, this is something about which I have already had lengthy discussions with Catholics on this board, and given ready mede answers to them in my Blog. You can read my answer to all the likely questions on this subject that you might ask in the following posts:

The Case Against Transubstantiation

Do Catholics Sacrifice Jesus Christ At Mass?

Transubstantiation vs. Real Presence

And in case you are interested, here is an article explaining the Mormon theology of the Sacrament:

The Theology of the Sacrament in the LDS Church

Have a look at these, and if you have any further questions I will be happy to answer them for you.

zerinus

 

[Jerusha]

How come everyone on this thread is a “former” Mormon?

And am I the only one not from Utah? All of you out there not from Utah give a shout out!!

I am not a former Mormon. I was raised Catholic, strayed from the Church, and returned. I am not from Utah.

I was raised in Hancock County, Illinois.

I rejected Mormonism because it manufactures history to achieve its own ends. I studied Mormonism because I was in denial for many years about how much influence it had on my life.

Thank you for your question.

 

[sweetnay]

Jerusha I’m with ya’ (after this post of course)

Scriptorian, I am not a feminazi, I was simply continuing Dianiad’s rant to the logical questions for her as to how she can stomach: polygamy, HM (exists but she doesn’t count) and the utter COMPLETE dependency on a man to pull a woman through the “veil”. Of course we all help each other out but this is ridiculous, these mormon beliefs are offensive to the dignity of the human person, most especially to the woman. I don’t expect you to see it because shoot–you have too much to lose-your own planet/world, god hood, D and C 132 and lots of sex. This is not mocking, its true. If I died today, it’s between God and I, not God and I and my worthier than me husband who may or may not call my name. Gimme a break (shaking head) Again I’m with Jerusha, please leave us alone–we know too much–no matter how you try to spin it.

 

[NewSeeker]

“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!

LeGrand Richards did it. He planted the seed leading to my apostate condition.

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.

It was easy to overcome the apostasy question since there is no evidence that an apostasy occurred.

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?

The marks of true religion do include power, testimony, scripture, and enlightening of the soul. But since true religion deals with all Truth, it also deals with history, science, and tradition. Faith must be supported by history and science, or faith is blind. Tradition is nothing more than allowing the dead to speak in the present. As Chesterton said, Tradition is democracy for the dead. Their truths are still true today and we need to let the dead have a voice if they speak truth.

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?

First, I never experienced the witness of the spirit when putting Moroni’s promise to the test. And then I learned some things that convinced me that Joseph Smith was not a prophet. Here’s the “biggies”. The following are pretty much in order as I addressed them in my mind.

1. the priesthood ban on black men was not of God. It was a racist, man-made policy that the church still, to this day, says was originally God’s idea.
2. The Garden of Eden story is figurative, not literal. The earth is billions of years old, God used evolution to create our species, human culture pre-dates 6000 BC. All of this means that there was no literal man named Adam and a literal woman named Eve living in a Garden with a two trees and a snake. All of that is figurative language that teaches spiritual truths about something (the exact details of which are unknown) that happened in the distant past. It also means that, since there was no Garden of Eden, there was no Adam-Ondi-Ahman, the Garden was not in Missouri, and Joseph Smith made all of that up.
3. Polygamy is not justified and is not from God. I never felt comfortable with this teaching.
4. the Book of Abraham is Joseph Smith’s invention (discovering this was HUGE for me).
5. Joseph’s revelations show doctrinal development and contradiction, which is not consistent with Joseph’s claim that they were given by Jesus himself. Compare the Book of Commandments and later versions of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants. Major edits to Joseph’s revelations show that they weren’t revelations. You don’t mess with Jesus’s words when he speaks them to your mind. Joseph did mess with Jesus’s words. This one was also huge. I was shocked when I found that some of Joseph’s revelations from Jesus had been heavily edited, and that these edits were consistent with Joseph’s doctrinal innovations. This is clear evidence that either a) they were inventions and Joseph was the author; or b) Joseph was tampering with Jesus’s words to suit his needs. Either is a major indictment of Joseph.
6. Joseph’s First Vision story in the various versions reveal a development in the story. First, it was one thing - consistent with other common Jesus visions among Christians in the area - than it was another. This also shocked me. Joseph adapted the story to suit his evolution from visionary to prophet.
7. A prophet cannot declare something to be doctrinal and revealed by God without that thing being doctrinal and revealed by God. If a prophet declares something to be from God that is not true, then that prophet has taught false doctrine. That means he is not a prophet. I found out that Brigham Young said lots of crazy stuff and declared it to be doctrinal and from God. Brigham Young was, therefore, not a prophet.

Those are the main points. I suppose someone can choose to have faith and work through one of the points while staying in the church, if that one point was the only issue. But all of the points? That’s just too much for a reasonable person to swallow. When my Mormon family members ask me to just have faith anyway and pray again for a testimony, it literally feels like they’re asking me to have faith that the moon is made of cottage cheese and there are little cheese-men in rowboats on the surface. Can you get on your knees and ask God if that is true? Go ahead and give it a try. Can you even make the attempt if someone were to ask to? No! You can’t get past the idea that to do so means you must completely ignore everything we know about astronomy, physics, and geology. How can you do that? Only a crazy person would do it. It’s the same for me with Mormonism, now that I know what I know about Mormon history and doctrinal development. Thinking about whether Mormonism is true makes me feel *exactly *like thinking about whether the cheese men are real. I can’t put my faith in that. The disconfirming evidence is just too strong. I can put my faith in Jesus, however, and I have done so.

NS

 

[Stephen168]

This was actually a mistranslation of Hebrews. It should have parenthesis before verse 7 and after verse 8 in this manner:

Verse 7 and 8 refer to Melchizedek. Verse 6 and 9 refer to Christ.

The New Testament was written without punctuation and there were no parenthesis in Greek. Putting verses 7&8 in parenthesis is just wishful thinking on your part. Verses 7-10 are about Christ. He is Christ; with or without parenthesis.

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.”

That is a nice Mormon story but there is no Melchizedek Priesthood in the Old Testament. There is Melchizedek and the promise of a priest like Melchizedek; that is all.

This, in part, was because Jesus was given the Melchizedek or Higher Priesthood and was a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek.

Nowhere is the New Testament is an actual “Melchizedek Priesthood” only a priesthood like Melchizedek. Christ is the High Priest like Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:15) as the author of Hebrews explains. Only in the Book of Hebrews will Melchizedek be mentioned and only to show how Christ is the High Priest in a likeness to him (Hebrews 7:3-9, 7:16) No earthly human meet these qualification

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.

Which takes me back to Mormonism being based completely on the word Joseph Smith, which history and science have destroyed.

 

[ParkerD]

To the general Reader:
Mormonism teaches that the earth is at least millions of years old, and is composed of matter that has existed forever.

Evolution is taught very comfortably at BYU.

Carbon-14 dating is a theory, unprovable as fact because we don’t have complete knowledge of atmospheric conditions through all of earth time. Carbon-14 dating assumes constant conditions–that how it is now is how it has always been.

Have a good day, all.

 

[dianaiad]

Catholics believe that God has no gender.

That would come as quite a surprise to Jesus Christ, Who was most definitely a man. Man.

If you believe that you have a co-creator goddess, why don’t you worship this goddess?

Because we don’t. Her existence is implicit in Latter-day Saint thought and doctrine, but we don’t know who she is, nor do we worship her. Or rather, we do so through Him. One of the reasons may be (and I’ve been around long enough to understand that this is a very real consideration) that actively worshiping her would allow the sort of profane disrespect that God gets every single day…from “OMG!” on cell phones to you name it.

So…don’t know why we do not actively worship her. The above would be good enough reason for me, though.

Those LDS who think we should, and actively insist that we do, get excommunicated for apostasy. They are welcome to teach whatever they want to, of course—but not as members of the church.

As to your claims that Catholics believe God has no gender? If that were true, you wouldn’t be praying to our FATHER, would you? The gender assignment is obvious and automatic. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost…every single one MALE. You assign Him a gender–the preferred one, of course, male.

It’s a linguistic, semantic and cultural thing, of course, but the only way you can call God ‘genderless’ and still call Him “He” is to completely dismiss the gender ‘female’ from existence… If everybody is a “he,” and women simply disappear, of course the result is ‘genderless.’ This does not say good things about one’s view of ‘female.’

Nope, I’ll believe that you consider God to be ‘genderless’ when you start referring to Him as “It,” There ARE belief systems out there that do just that, y’know.

 

[dianaiad]

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!!

Define 'from Utah." (grin) I was born in Idaho, and have lived in California for all but five of the last 45 years. True, those five years were in Utah…Logan, to be precise.

A beautiful valley, exceptional university, lovely people, great weather (with four seasons that begin and end when they are supposed to), fanTAStic scenery, and utterly atrocious drivers. I’d move back in a heartbeat—if, that is, I could drive a military grade Hummer.

Does that make me ‘from’ Utah?

Diana

 

[dianaiad]

Just because people aren’t married in Heaven, it dosn’t mean that my family won’t be there. Actually, I’M COUNTING ON IT!!! And I’m also sure that St. Therese is counting on her family being there too. She was very, very close to both her parents and and her siblings. She loved (and I’m sure still does) love her family very, very much as does most Catholics. I think family is one of those all important areas that both Catholics and Latter Day Saints have in common.

Where in the bible or in Catholic writings/tradition does it say that you will be with your family in heaven?

I have heard many Catholics (and people of other faiths, as well) claim that they believe this, that their families will be together. Nobody, though, has actually given me something from their pastors/traditions/scriptures to support that idea.

From where I sit, this expectation for your family seems to be fine when you do it and hope for it, but something to be criticized severely when a different denomination actually has the nerve to come out and SAY so, and have it be official doctrine rather than wishful thinking.

 

[dianaiad]

Jerusha I’m with ya’ (after this post of course)

Scriptorian, I am not a feminazi, I was simply continuing Dianiad’s rant to the logical questions for her as to how she can stomach: polygamy, HM (exists but she doesn’t count) and the utter COMPLETE dependency on a man to pull a woman through the “veil”. Of course we all help each other out but this is ridiculous, these mormon beliefs are offensive to the dignity of the human person, most especially to the woman. I don’t expect you to see it because shoot–you have too much to lose-your own planet/world, god hood, D and C 132 and lots of sex. This is not mocking, its true. If I died today, it’s between God and I, not God and I and my worthier than me husband who may or may not call my name. Gimme a break (shaking head) Again I’m with Jerusha, please leave us alone–we know too much–no matter how you try to spin it.

Sweetnay: if you push the “quote” button at the bottom right of the message, you will automatically include the message to which you are responding. Try that. It will be much easier for me to follow your train of thought, for one thing, so that if you really are ‘continuing [my] rant’ I’ll actually know what you are talking about and can respond appropriately.

It is difficult for me to follow you unless you do this, especially in a thread that is as active as this one.

 

[NewSeeker]

Where in the bible or in Catholic writings/tradition does it say that you will be with your family in heaven?

I have heard many Catholics (and people of other faiths, as well) claim that they believe this, that their families will be together. Nobody, though, has actually given me something from their pastors/traditions/scriptures to support that idea.

From where I sit, this expectation for your family seems to be fine when you do it and hope for it, but something to be criticized severely when a different denomination actually has the nerve to come out and SAY so, and have it be official doctrine rather than wishful thinking.

Dianaiad,

If everyone in my family merits heaven, how can we all be in heaven but not be there together? You’re position has an illogic to it. If Catholics are right, and there are no married persons in heaven, what do you think that life would be like? If you think, like Catholics do, that the redeemed will be in God’s presence as unmarried persons, unsealed in a Mormon temple, what does that mean? If my family and I are all redeemed and in God’s presence individually, does that not also mean that we are not in God’s presence together? Will God keep me away from my kids? Suppose I want to walk over to my wife (here on earth) and say to her in heaven “hello, isn’t it wonderful to be here with our boys together in God’s presence”? and grab her hand to hold it. Will Jesus stop me and say “oh - I’m sorry. You two aren’t married; you can’t talk to each other or hold hands in my presence.” Are all of us in heaven, unmarried and unsealed, prevented from interacting with one another in any way? It seems you think this is so.

NS

 

[NewSeeker]

Carbon-14 dating is a theory, unprovable as fact because we don’t have complete knowledge of atmospheric conditions through all of earth time. Carbon-14 dating assumes constant conditions–that how it is now is how it has always been.

Atmospheric conditions prior to 4000 BC are known, as determined by ice core samples with more recent layers used as a control. Carbon dating is reliable enough to know that humans have been around a lot longer than 6000 years ago. Joseph Smith’s placement of Eden in Missouri was an invention.

NS

 

[cothrige]

Okay, this is something about which I have already had lengthy discussions with Catholics on this board, and given ready mede answers to them in my Blog. You can read my answer to all the likely questions on this subject that you might ask in the following posts:

[snip]

zerinus

The flesh which profits nothing is not Christ’s, but those who hear him. The Spirit which gives life is not a symbol, and spiritual truths are not less real or literal than earthly truths. Those are facts.

If you think you can prove that the Spirit is a symbol or that Christ’s flesh profited nothing you can certainly try. I would be very willing to discuss it with you. However, I won’t follow links to blogs or read previous posts. I am not interested in generating traffic to your website, and if you can’t be bothered to type the words then I can’t be bothered to read them.

 

[FCEGM]

Dianaiad,

If everyone in my family merits heaven, how can we all be in heaven but not be there together? You’re position has an illogic to it. If Catholics are right, and there are no married persons in heaven, what do you think that life would be like? If you think, like Catholics do, that the redeemed will be in God’s presence as unmarried persons, unsealed in a Mormon temple, what does that mean? If my family and I are all redeemed and in God’s presence individually, does that not also mean that we are not in God’s presence together? Will God keep me away from my kids? Suppose I want to walk over to my wife (here on earth) and say to her in heaven “hello, isn’t it wonderful to be here with our boys together in God’s presence”? and grab her hand to hold it. Will Jesus stop me and say “oh - I’m sorry. You two aren’t married; you can’t talk to each other or hold hands in my presence.” Are all of us in heaven, unmarried and unsealed, prevented from interacting with one another in any way? It seems you think this is so.

NS

Well said, NS. And the further point is that neither Catholics nor Mormons can say with absolute certainty that all of one’s family will be in Heaven. However much one’s family has been “sealed” a la Temple rituals, if one member apostasizes (as we know from experience here), so much for the sealing. So the drawing-card idea of Mormonism that one’s family can be sealed for eternity, is just that, a drawing-card but with no ace in the hole.

 

[zerinus]

To the general Reader:
Mormonism teaches that the earth is at least millions of years old, . . .

Well, I am not sure that the Church actually teaches that. The Church teaches what is in the standard works; and as far as I know the age of the earth has not been revealed in the Bible, or in modern LDS scripture. Scientists like to dig into these things, and that is okay. The Church has no problem with that. It is their job to dig into such things; and I am sure the Church, like everybody else, takes an interest in their findings. But scientific theories do not form part of the theology of Latter-day Saints.

Evolution is taught very comfortably at BYU.

I am sure it is. BYU is a respected academic institution, and it should teach all scientific theories and branches of knowledge that are taught in other respected academies in the world. But I don’t think it is the position of the Church that human life (or other advanced life forms) evolved from lower life forms according to the Darwinian Theory of Evolution. That may not be what you meant, but I think it is important to clarify that.

zerinus