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

[NewSeeker]

Zaffiroborant and also CJ,
You both have asked very good questions. You probably have in mind a family living in a home where there are parents and children. NewSeeker, I think, was correct in inferring that there will be loving interpersonal relationships in all of Heaven. Parent/child relationships continuing from this life will be more inter-connected in the Celestial Kingdom, but obviously each marriage that endures past death will have the special union which marriage is or can be, and no other relationship will have that kind of emotional intimacy and inter-dependence.

If one partner who was sealed in an LDS temple ceremony is not faithful to the promises and covenants they made including to be supportive of each other, and if they don’t repent, they simply have not qualified themselves for having the marriage endure past death. It is dissolved at death. A lot of choosing will happen in the spirit world after this life and during the Millenium, to rectify the “missing links” or “missing spouses who weren’t faithful”.

Parker,

All of this assumes that, without marriage, the happiness that comes from being with God is insufficient. But how can those who participate in the divine life in heaven be anything other than perfectly happy? The formality of a marriage bond is not required to attain such bliss, which is the only true object of the faithful Christian: to be united eternally with God in Christ.

NS

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,

All of this assumes that, without marriage, the happiness that comes from being with God is insufficient. But how can those who participate in the divine life in heaven be anything other than perfectly happy? The formality of a marriage bond is not required to attain such bliss, which is the only true object of the faithful Christian: to be united eternally with God in Christ.

NS

NewSeeker,
I love God and Christ with all my heart and soul. I also love my wife and feel a connection to her that is spiritually fulfilling. When we are communicating well and have emotional intimacy, I learn far more and feel much closer to God, feel a deep sense of gratitude and joy, and we feel energized by our relationship.

I am saying God will not take that relationship away from me in the resurrection if I am faithful to covenants. You evidently are saying that He will. (Surely you don’t think He is jealous? Why would He take that away?) God builds, lifts, energizes, strengthens all that is good. He does not take away, tear down, impose, or any such thing. He adds to what we already have.

 

[RebeccaJ]

No, we believe that love continues, as do our abilities to reason and develop relationships. So…we believe that family units can be eternal. Not simply that we will have ‘feelings’ for each other, but as specific family units.

Then you do not believe what Jesus taught.

 

[NewSeeker]

Parker, I agree 100% with you. I do not think God will take that away from you. I only think that your relationship and your feelings for one another does not depend on the formality of a marriage contract. The marriage contract do not create the relationship or the feelings. Nor does it allow the relationship and feelings to exist. It only validates what’s already there and gives you a license to procreate. That’s all a marriage contract is. Take away the contract and the relationship and feelings do not magically disappear. Nor will God conduct surgery on you and your wife to remove those feelings (thus ending your relationship) after death if your LDS eternal marriage were invalidated for some reason. Marriage is about procreation; it is about creating children here on earth. There is no procreation in the next world. My relationship with my wife will be exactly the same as it is here. We will no longer be married, but so what? I will still be with her, she will be with me, and we will be united in love and together in God’s presence, along with everyone else who has been redeemed by Christ. As you say, our relationship will be enlivened by Christ in heaven. Where I disagree with you is that I do not believe that our relationship will end just because our marriage contract ends. God will not keep us apart from each other if we are there together in his presence. Since there is no sex and no procreation in heaven, marriage is not required in heaven. My relationship with my wife will continue, but I will have a relationship with every other person in heaven added to it and we will all be one heavenly family (not individual family units) united in communion with Christ.

NS

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Hi Christine! It would appear from this quote that you are unaware of true lds history, most notably the bloody reign of Brigham Young (who had 55 wives) head of the Danites. You can find much of this info from their own Journal of Discourses and I would suggest www.utlm.org (unable to post links on my blackberry). Its a real eye opener and I think you’ll come away w a slightly different impression

I’ve read some of his discourses and personally, I think they are pithy and humorous. I think he was an amazing leader. I’m not anti-Mormon though.

 

[RebeccaJ]

No, we believe that love continues, as do our abilities to reason and develop relationships. So…we believe that family units can be eternal. Not simply that we will have ‘feelings’ for each other, but as specific family units.

Your beliefs also go quite beyond this. The only reason you need marriage in heaven is so that you can split off as gods and goddesses. Increasing the pantheon and going off to create worlds and spirits of your own, to be worshiped and glorified by those creations.

This is wholly made up. There is no Christian that has believed such a thing, ever, from the Apostles to now.

 

[cothrige]

Oh, yes. It is quite “literally” the biggest question of all!

[snip]

Yes, it is the single most important question in the study of the scriptures – and one of the most important reasons we need a Prophet of God to answer it for each time it is asked.

Well, there is always the option of an infallible Church.

 

[Stephen168]

Oh, yes. It is quite “literally” the biggest question of all!

This is my body - literal or figurative?

Yes, it is the single most important question in the study of the scriptures – and one of the most important reasons we need a Prophet of God to answer it for each time it is asked.

The Catholic Church has been answering the question the same way since Christ taught it to us. The answer will never change.

 

[StevenFrancis]

This is true. But mormons live a very christian life and have love for Jesus, Heavenly Father and the Holy Ghost.

I don’t disagree with this statement. Many are quite devout. Catholics could learn a few things from the LDS regarding the family, in particular. I have respect for the adherents, but of course will always remain steadfast in my calling as a Catholic Christian to spread the good news of the Gospels and the holy Trinity to my brothers and sisters of all religious or spiritual persuasions.

I have always been curious, do you, (or anyone else), know of any Mormon forums similar to CA? I’d love to be able to chime in on some LDS topics in their forums, as CA encourages (name removed by moderator)ut from all faiths here.

The Peace of the Lord be with you always,

Blessings,

Steven

 

[Jerusha]

mormonapologetics.org/ is the primary one. I never go there, because of a bad experience. They were baiting me to get me to blow my top and get banned. It was quite nasty. I guess they thought I knew too much. They ban non-mormons with regularity. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

 

[LDSGuy]

there are a number of non LDS that post regularly on MADB, including a couple Catholics.

 

[Jerusha]

Agreed. There was an agenda directly aimed at me. Not saying others don’t get along with them. Particularly if they don’t have much to challenge LDS ppeople with.

 

[StevenFrancis]

Thank you Jershua and LDS guy. I’ll give it a try. While I am staunchly Catholic, and of course, my prayers are for LDS conversion, I don’t intend any fighting or bickering. I do hope that sincere theological debate is encouraged. If not, I’ll just move on and hope that enough Mormons (and others as well) come here in order to be exposed to the Gospel.

Peace to all,

Steven

 

[dianaiad]

I never claimed history, science, and tradition were the marks of a true religion. Jesus Christ started a Church and that Church is supported by history, science, and reason. God would not have us believe as a matter of faith one thing, while at the same time have history, reason, or science prove that thing to be false. History, science and reason do NOT support the Mormon Church and in the last 50 years or so have proven the Mormon Church to based on fiction.

Actually, yeah, you have claimed exactly that, many times. Every time you claim that science, history and reason support Catholicism, that is precisely what you are claiming.

Now if you could only explain to us exactly HOW science, history and reason support your claim, I would appreciate it.

 

[NewSeeker]

Actually, yeah, you have claimed exactly that, many times. Every time you claim that science, history and reason support Catholicism, that is precisely what you are claiming.

Now if you could only explain to us exactly HOW science, history and reason support your claim, I would appreciate it.

I’ll give you an easy one. We Catholics believe that Jesus is the risen Christ. Mormons do too. We base that belief on the Bible. But there must be some evidence outside the Bible that corroborates the existence of Jesus to say that science, history, and reason support our faith in Jesus. That’s not proof, but it would be evidence that makes it rational to believe that Jesus existed. In the case of both the Bible and the corroborating evidence, we do have ancient documents that name Jesus and the movement he founded. That proves that the Jesus story goes back at least as far as the oldest surviving biblical and secular manuscripts that mention his name (to the 2nd Century at least). We Catholics claim that Jesus lived and lived 2000 years ago in Israel, under Roman rule. We have evidence to back up that claim. We know Jerusalem existed then; we know Rome existed then; we have ancient biblical manuscripts that mention Jesus within that context, and we have ancient secular manuscripts from the same period that also mention Jesus, Jerusalem, and Rome. It is thus rational to believe that all three existed.

What do you have for the Book of Mormon? What evidence do you have outside of the BoM that supports your claim that that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record? There is none, except for the word of Joseph Smith. We have archeological and manuscript evidence that proves Jerusalem existed 2000 years ago and that the gospels and OT books are from ancient times. We KNOW the Bible is an ancient book. But there is absolutely zero evidence from the New World that contains any reference to uniquely Book of Mormon people and locations (e.g. Nephi, Zarahemla). There is no evidence at all that proves the Book of Mormon to be any older than the late 1820s. **The issue is not whether there is evidence to prove the Bible or Book of Mormon true. That is a matter of faith. The issue is whether those books can be proved to be ancient. **That is a matter of science and history, the basis for rational decisions. We know the Bible is ancient, because there is evidence that proves it is. Putting your faith in the historicity of the Bible accounts is therefore a rational act. But there is no evidence at all (absolutely zero) from the New World of Nephite civilization, even though it supposedly existed at the same time as Jerusalem 2000 years ago and was populated by a literate, highly organized society that built buildings and kept records. There is no evidence that Nephites ever existed outside the BoM. That makes faith in the BoM an irrational act.

I’ll say it again. The issue is not whether there is evidence to prove the Bible or Book of Mormon true. The issue is whether those books can be proved to be ancient. We know the Bible is ancient. The Book of Mormon is not ancient. It is a fictional account written by Joseph Smith in the 19th Century.

NS

 

[Stephen168]

Actually, yeah, you have claimed exactly that, many times. Every time you claim that science, history and reason support Catholicism, that is precisely what you are claiming.

Now if you could only explain to us exactly HOW science, history and reason support your claim, I would appreciate it.

Have you read and understand posts #348 & #450?

 

[ParkerD]

NewSeeker,
I assume you believe that God is omnipotent. If so, and He wanted to test your own personal faith, why would He provide you with archeological evidence so that you could prove a certain thing for yourself? That would defeat His purpose. Why should He defeat His purpose just because you want Him to? Are you saying you are smarter than God?

Maybe you don’t really deeply feel He is omnipotent?

Does your belief include that He has to provide a “follow the yellow brick road” trail of evidence, or that He can’t do anything differently other than how the Bible came to be?

It sounds like your belief restricts God. That doesn’t seem to allow for omnipotence.

Peace to you.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Quite the contrary, we see that God goes to great lengths to ensure we understand.

God could have set the world right, in any way He chose. He is after all, GOD. He chose to lower Himself as one of us. To live, to suffer, to die. With thousands of years of prophecy that proclaimed this before it happened. Multiple witnesses to His Truth.

At His Resurrection, the wounds of His Sacrifice remained. Certainly you believe God could have healed these completely, not even a scar? Yet, He invites Thomas, who was with Him in life, to touch His wounds. To know they are real. Do you think He knew Thomas would need this?

Mormons seem to think that God does not know us, the very creatures He Created. Mormons seems to think God Created us to not use what He gave us…the ability to reason.

**156 **What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason: we believe “because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived”. So “that the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance with reason, God willed that external proofs of his Revelation should be joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit.” Thus the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church’s growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability “are the most certain signs of divine Revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all”; they are “motives of credibility” (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is “by no means a blind impulse of the mind”

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

zerinus,

You should do whatever you like. I have responded to your comments directly, without cut and paste, and without trying to send you to any personal blogs or websites. And you have done as you have felt comfortable. My comments, I think, stand as they are, and your responses should do the same. I am not interested in criticizing your personality or intellect, and commenting on whether I find either inferior. I can’t see the point. And, if in the future you feel you would like to contribute to something I post, then you should feel absolutely free to do so. I will gladly read it, and perhaps comment if I think such is merited. If you decide to let something end there, please don’t trouble yourself to let me know. Just don’t post. Anything more is really not necessary.

Don’t pay him any mind. He is know to tell people that if they disagree with him they are wrong and not worth wasting is time in talking to. I do not even bother to respond to anything he post as to use his word it non since.

 

[NewSeeker]

NewSeeker,
I assume you believe that God is omnipotent. If so, and He wanted to test your own personal faith, why would He provide you with archeological evidence so that you could prove a certain thing for yourself? That would defeat His purpose. Why should He defeat His purpose just because you want Him to? Are you saying you are smarter than God?

Maybe you don’t really deeply feel He is omnipotent?

Does your belief include that He has to provide a “follow the yellow brick road” trail of evidence, or that He can’t do anything differently other than how the Bible came to be?

It sounds like your belief restricts God. That doesn’t seem to allow for omnipotence.

Peace to you.

Parker,

A test of faith is not a fair test unless the person taking the test knows he’s being tested. And how do I know my faith is being tested? How is that info communicated to me?

If some guy comes along, knocks on my door and says “God sent me to you to test you” I’m not going to just take his word for it. Maybe he just got let out of the state hospital, or maybe he’s selling snake oil. I want him to show me his evidence that God sent him. That does not limit God’s omnipotence in any way. It only means that I’m using the brain that God gave me. Lot’s of people knock on my door and say “God sent me.” Well, Joseph Smith is one of the guys who knocked on my door and said “God sent me”. What evidence did he give me? He handed me a book and said “Here, I got this book from an angel and it tells the story of the ancient inhabitants of this land.” And that’s all the evidence he gave me. That’s it. There is no other evidence. Zip. Nada. He wants me to take his word for it. Sorry, but that’s not enough. And God would not leave me hanging, completely silent, if he really did send Joseph to my door. For a fair test, God must somehow signal to me which of the door-knockers is really His messenger. There has to be something beyond Joseph’s mere word to support his claim. Well, where’s the evidence? You can’t show me any since there is none. Sorry. Without something more than Joseph’s word, I won’t be buying what appears to be snake oil.

May God’s peace be with you also.

NS