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

[cothrige]

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?

Pardon me for jumping in here, but I can’t pass this up without commenting. What I am wondering is, given the above from yourself, how do you explain all the archaeological evidence of ancient Hebrew peoples in the Holy Land? There is evidence of ancient peoples in Jerusalem, and throughout Israel and the MIddle East. The Christian peoples also left evidence behind throughout the world. There are writings, inscriptions, and artifacts of varying types from back to the earliest Christian centuries. If God were going to intentionally destroy every single piece of historical evidence of His people so that we would not have a “yellow brick road” to faith, then why did he allow exactly that to remain everywhere except the New World? How do you explain the obvious difference? Why is God so intent on misleading us in the Americas but is okay with us seeing the evidence of the Church across the ocean?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Pardon me for jumping in here, but I can’t pass this up without commenting. What I am wondering is, given the above from yourself, how do you explain all the archaeological evidence of ancient Hebrew peoples in the Holy Land? There is evidence of ancient peoples in Jerusalem, and throughout Israel and the MIddle East. The Christian peoples also left evidence behind throughout the world. There are writings, inscriptions, and artifacts of varying types from back to the earliest Christian centuries. If God were going to intentionally destroy every single piece of historical evidence of His people so that we would not have a “yellow brick road” to faith, then why did he allow exactly that to remain everywhere except the New World? How do you explain the obvious difference? Why is God so intent on misleading us in the Americas but is okay with us seeing the evidence of the Church across the ocean?

Not that I believe in the Book of Mormon, but who can claim to know the ways of God? That was Job’s mistake. God can do whatever he wants, whether it makes sense to us poor humans or not!

 

[cothrige]

Not that I believe in the Book of Mormon, but who can claim to know the ways of God? That was Job’s mistake. God can do whatever he wants, whether it makes sense to us poor humans or not!

Yes, but God does not lie, and he does not mislead. And we can also ask questions and use reason. Just because something is posited as having happened one cannot simply say that God is mysterious and so you cannot question whether the suggestion is true. And one way we can use reason when it comes to new theories about God or his Church is to compare what is said to what we know God has revealed or done in the past. This is an entirely new idea, that God has actually destroyed or covered up the archaeological record of his people, and so it is entirely right to ask if we have reason to accept this. Has God done this before? Has he ever revealed to his Church that such is what he has done? No, on both counts. I am asking the person who is claiming that God has manipulated the historical record to explain the discrepency, and I don’t think the fact that God’s ways are a mystery to us is an acceptable answer.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Yes, but God does not lie, and he does not mislead. And we can also ask questions and use reason. Just because something is posited as having happened one cannot simply say that God is mysterious and so you cannot question whether the suggestion is true. And one way we can use reason when it comes to new theories about God or his Church is to compare what is said to what we know God has revealed or done in the past. This is an entirely new idea, that God has actually destroyed or covered up the archaeological record of his people, and so it is entirely right to ask if we have reason to accept this. Has God done this before? Has he ever revealed to his Church that such is what he has done? No, on both counts. I am asking the person who is claiming that God has manipulated the historical record to explain the discrepency, and I don’t think the fact that God’s ways are a mystery to us is an acceptable answer.

Well a lot of what is in the Bible is extremely allegorical. Especially the farther back you go in time. For example the Garden of Eden. I’m not sure that is any more credible than the Nephi and Lamanite civilization in the new world.

Of course I understand what you are saying about historical evidence in the Holy Land and in Egypt etc, however, there is a lot of stuff that isn’t the least bit historical in the Bible. I very much doubt the sun stood still for Joshua’s army or those walls came a tumblin’ down! A lot of it is just plain fiction. But it means something.

Therefore, even if the Book of Mormon is just plain fiction, it has a lot of meaning for the people who believe in it.

 

[ParkerD]

Pardon me for jumping in here, but I can’t pass this up without commenting. What I am wondering is, given the above from yourself, how do you explain all the archaeological evidence of ancient Hebrew peoples in the Holy Land? There is evidence of ancient peoples in Jerusalem, and throughout Israel and the MIddle East. The Christian peoples also left evidence behind throughout the world. There are writings, inscriptions, and artifacts of varying types from back to the earliest Christian centuries. If God were going to intentionally destroy every single piece of historical evidence of His people so that we would not have a “yellow brick road” to faith, then why did he allow exactly that to remain everywhere except the New World? How do you explain the obvious difference? Why is God so intent on misleading us in the Americas but is okay with us seeing the evidence of the Church across the ocean?

Cothrige,
I’ll give you what I think is the obvious answer, but you won’t like it and certainly won’t agree with it.
The Bible gives a person ground zero for faith from which to build. It also gives many religions a basis for their beliefs, which allows them to believe in the way that is comfortable for them. God has allowed this to happen for the benefit of mankind, so they can live happily with as much knowledge as they want to seek after. God will not force knowledge of Himself on people.

The history of this world is on a plane of progression, not stagnation or staying in one place. There is more knowledge to be had, but it must be sought for. See 1 Cor 2, entire chapter. Real knowledge of God can only be had by personal revelation.

 

[ParkerD]

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

NewSeeker,
Thanks. If this life is not perceived by you as a test of your faith, then the hundred or more examples from the Bible I could quote will not help change your mind in that respect.

Again, peace to you. I am not trying to be curt. I think the Bible is full of signals–hundreds of them. My point time and again is that I don’t need “Joseph’s word” to know the Book of Mormon is true. I have Paul’s attestation of the process of revelation (1 Cor 2), and I have confirmed it in my own life thousands of times, independently of any other person.

 

[ParkerD]

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”

Rebecca,
I of course know that God knows us far better than we know ourselves. I don’t take Thomas’ example as a precedent for my own life. If his faith is your precedent, then I guess you had better start praying very hard for a personal appearance of the Savior.

As you know, the Savior also (according to the Book of Mormon) appeared to the Nephites with the wounds in His hands and feet visible and touchable. I assume that He also did that to the lost ten tribes He visited.

But the confirming witness of the Holy Ghost thousands of times is good enough for me to KNOW HE LIVES.

 

[cothrige]

Well a lot of what is in the Bible is extremely allegorical. Especially the farther back you go in time. For example the Garden of Eden. I’m not sure that is any more credible than the Nephi and Lamanite civilization in the new world.

Well, we are not talking about the Garden of Eden, but the existence of an entire culture over a long period of time. And I am not even questioning that. What I am questioning is the theory put forth that the lack of even the smallest bit of evidence can be explained by saying that God got rid of it. That is saying something. If that is so, then how do we know that God didn’t put fake evidence in the Middle East? Maybe there were never any Jews there at all? Maybe it was Muslim from the start? This is a novel suggestion and judging it by what we know definitively about God both from revelation and reason is a just and proper way of approaching it.

Of course I understand what you are saying about historical evidence in the Holy Land and in Egypt etc, however, there is a lot of stuff that isn’t the least bit historical in the Bible. I very much doubt the sun stood still for Joshua’s army or those walls came a tumblin’ down! A lot of it is just plain fiction. But it means something.

But, I wasn’t asking anybody to prove that anything actually happened. I had never asked about it. Somebody said that God had covered up the evidence, and that is a positive assertion about God and I don’t accept it. It doesn’t stand in the face of what is known about God.

Therefore, even if the Book of Mormon is just plain fiction, it has a lot of meaning for the people who believe in it.

I think you are misunderstanding me on this. I really was not trying to cast doubt on the BoM, at least not with that question I posted above. I was trying to cast doubt on the statement that God is deceiving us about history with fake evidence and archaeology. I have a relative, an independent fundamentalist, who believes that the earth is only a few thousand years old. She says that the dinosaur bones were planted by God to trick people. What this poster said about the archaeological record is the same basic premise. And if that is so then everything the Church has said about reason and science is a lie, since neither can matter in a world in which God changes the rules as we go along. I don’t think we as Catholics can accept that suggestion.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,
I of course know that God knows us far better than we know ourselves. I don’t take Thomas’ example as a precedent for my own life. If his faith is your precedent, then I guess you had better start praying very hard for a personal appearance of the Savior.

As you know, the Savior also (according to the Book of Mormon) appeared to the Nephites with the wounds in His hands and feet visible and touchable. I assume that He also did that to the lost ten tribes He visited.

But the confirming witness of the Holy Ghost thousands of times is good enough for me to KNOW HE LIVES.

No **** sherlock.

I mean, why the assumptions about my faith? That is not what my post was about.

 

[TwoDachshunds]

Who cares what Mormons believe? This is Catholic Answers, not “Mormon Answers.”

 

[NewSeeker]

NewSeeker,
Thanks. If this life is not perceived by you as a test of your faith, then the hundred or more examples from the Bible I could quote will not help change your mind in that respect.

Again, peace to you. I am not trying to be curt. I think the Bible is full of signals–hundreds of them. My point time and again is that I don’t need “Joseph’s word” to know the Book of Mormon is true. I have Paul’s attestation of the process of revelation (1 Cor 2), and I have confirmed it in my own life thousands of times, independently of any other person.

Parker,

I know you’re not trying to be curt. You are just in a different place from me. The difference between me and you is I’ve never had the witness of the spirit or even felt God’s presence in any recognizable way. All I have is philosophy and theology to build a faith in God and those grounds led me straight to Catholicism. My experience also means I will never, can never, believe in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith until a Nephite coin is turned up in Guatemala. Until then, I must continue to believe that he made the whole thing up. I tried the Moroni 10:3-5 approach and it didn’t work. In fact, it backfired on me since the failure of Moroni’s promise turned me into an atheist for many years. I was only rescued from atheism by C.S. Lewis and Aquinas, who provided me a solid philosophical foundation for believing in God. I tell my wife that my issues have nothing to do with whether Mormonism is true. It cannot be, unless God sends me that witness and, honestly, I’m done looking for it. Never again will I pray and ask God whether the BoM is true. As I said in another thread, if I were to try once more, it would feel exactly like someone is asking me to get on my knees and ask God if the moon is made of cottage cheese with little cheese men in row boats cruising the surface. The proposition that Mormonism might be true feels exactly like that to me. It’s just so ludicrous that I can’t even will myself to even make the attempt to try. I spent too many wasted years with nothing but negative effects to ever give that approach a try again. My struggle is whether there really is a God. And only orthodox Christianity has the solid philosophical foundation in place that makes belief in God rational. For that reason, for me it’s either Catholicism or atheism. Those are the only two options. My faith is not experiential; it is intellectual. That’s why I can never be a Mormon again.

Have a good one, Parker. And God bless you.

NS

 

[Jerusha]

I believe that there is some historical truth in the Book of Mormon. However, it is not ancient. It is only old.

I also have respect for Gilgamesh, Sophocles, Plato, and Aristotle, which ARE ancient. That does not make them sacred scripture, and I don’t think anyone regards them to be sacred scripture.

I respect your position, Parker, but you are deceived. It just ain’t so. :nope: And I know that you are a rational, intelligent person. That is why it is so incredible that you believe in it. But, I suppose if your parents read it to you and told you it was sacred scripture since you were knee-high to a grasshopper, that is what you would believe. :sad_yes:

 

[ParkerD]

NewSeeker,
I sincerely appreciate both your candor and your kindness. I think you are in a good place with your beliefs based on your needs and wants. I honestly wish you the very best. Take care, and God bless.

 

[ParkerD]

I believe that there is some historical truth in the Book of Mormon. However, it is not ancient. It is only old.

I also have respect for Gilgamesh, Sophocles, Plato, and Aristotle, which ARE ancient. That does not make them sacred scripture, and I don’t think anyone regards them to be sacred scripture.

I respect your position, Parker, but you are deceived. It just ain’t so. :nope: And I know that you are a rational, intelligent person. That is why it is so incredible that you believe in it. But, I suppose if your parents read it to you and told you it was sacred scripture since you were knee-high to a grasshopper, that is what you would believe. :sad_yes:

Jerusha,
My parent didn’t read the Book of Mormon to me, ever that I can remember. I’ve read it perhaps 50 times (lost count). 'Read the Bible ten times. Both provide the basis of personal revelation in my own life–plenty of it, hundreds of times.

Since I live by a higher set of standards (meaning higher covenants beyond the ten commandments and the Beatitudes) than most Catholics from what I’ve been able to gather, then I just don’t think God would say “you are to be punished because you didn’t accept Catholicism.” (That doesn’t mean I have even the tiniest doubt about what God will really say.) But be that as it may, I won’t repeat what I have thought whenever I have read the encyclopedia on this website. I don’t want to offend anyone, and I think you folks are just fine with what you have. Peace to you.

 

[ParkerD]

No **** sherlock.

I mean, why the assumptions about my faith? That is not what my post was about.

Rebecca,
I apologize for having been sarcastic. That is definitely a weakness (sin) I have, which my wife reminds me of often. I still need to work on it, plenty.

I understood your point about Thomas. I think you have ample faith in your life based on your desires and interests. I wish you all the best, honestly. Again, I apologize.

 

[kikkichan]

Parker,

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?
…

Peace to you.

I tried to trace this comment but was unsuccessful, sorry if this should be obvious.

Is the underlined segment in your above quote a reference to an explanation
as for why the archeological record in the Americas is inconsistent with the existence
of a thriving Nephite and Lamanite population? That is, that acceptance of the Book of
Mormon should be based on faith? And that faith without the archeological record is a
faith that was tested? And the lack of a supporting archeological record is by design?

thanks
-kc

 

[cothrige]

Cothrige,
I’ll give you what I think is the obvious answer, but you won’t like it and certainly won’t agree with it.
The Bible gives a person ground zero for faith from which to build. It also gives many religions a basis for their beliefs, which allows them to believe in the way that is comfortable for them. God has allowed this to happen for the benefit of mankind, so they can live happily with as much knowledge as they want to seek after. God will not force knowledge of Himself on people.

The history of this world is on a plane of progression, not stagnation or staying in one place. There is more knowledge to be had, but it must be sought for. See 1 Cor 2, entire chapter. Real knowledge of God can only be had by personal revelation.

But, I still don’t see how you can say that God has removed all the archaeological evidence of these cultures in the Americas, but has left it all in place in the Holy Land. How do you support this? Why only the Americas? If he wants people to find the truth for themselves, then why leave all that stuff buried around the Temple mount, or inscriptions referencing the Hebrews in Egypt, or the Dead Sea Scrolls, or any other such thing. It just doesn’t make sense. God removes everything in the New World, because we should believe for other reasons, but ignores everywhere else entirely? It just doesn’t make any sense to me.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,

I tried to trace this comment but was unsuccessful, sorry if this should be obvious.

Is the underlined segment in your above quote a reference to an explanation
as for why the archeological record in the Americas is inconsistent with the existence
of a thriving Nephite and Lamanite population? That is, that acceptance of the Book of
Mormon should be based on faith? And that faith without the archeological record is a
faith that was tested? And the lack of a supporting archeological record is by design?

thanks
-kc

Kikkichan,
Yes to all of those questions.
As to “the existence of a thriving Nephite and Lamanite population,” bear in mind that although the Lamanites are always talked about as being “more numerous” than the Nephites in the Book of Mormon, they are never talked about as “thriving.” They are depicted as hunters and scavengers, basically. Their society has no sophistication whatsoever, and they totally decimate the Nephite group, then they fight among themselves and are mostly killed off altogether by outside population groups.

The Nephite numbers are not really known, but as an example, when Christ visits them He visits a “great multitude gathered together” (3 Nephi 11:1) that turns out to be only 2,500 people total including men, women, and children. (3 Nephi 17:1) From that time in 34 AD until 385 AD, the Nephite population grows to only 230,000 people, all except 24 of whom are killed in a battle described in Mormon 6. This Nephite group most likely lived in Central America based on the descriptions in the book–one of the most prolific areas of earthquakes and volcanoes in the world. How hard would it have been for God (truly omnipotent) to “hide the evidence” of 230,000 people whose culture had degenerated because of internal apostasy, using volcanoes and earthquakes plus the pillage by the Lamanites and others of anything they could get their hands on and carry off with them?

 

[ParkerD]

But, I still don’t see how you can say that God has removed all the archaeological evidence of these cultures in the Americas, but has left it all in place in the Holy Land. How do you support this? Why only the Americas? If he wants people to find the truth for themselves, then why leave all that stuff buried around the Temple mount, or inscriptions referencing the Hebrews in Egypt, or the Dead Sea Scrolls, or any other such thing. It just doesn’t make sense. God removes everything in the New World, because we should believe for other reasons, but ignores everywhere else entirely? It just doesn’t make any sense to me.

Cothrige,
I think I can see your point, but the Dead Sea Scrolls and similar other archeological finds haven’t proven religious truths, at least not to the extent of showing which religion is true. They allow for a diversity of beliefs. But archeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon would be an entirely different matter. It would be a “proof” that would disallow the operation of faith because it would “prove” that Joseph Smith did what he said he did. God is simply not going to do that. It defeats His purpose. It does not comply with 1 Corinthians 2.

It also would not comply with Isaiah 29:4. “Thy speech shall whisper out of the dust.”

I am not trying to prove the Book of Mormon to you or anyone. I am saying that it is going to take a different expectation for anyone who wants to read the Book of Mormon than the kind of evidence they would seek using archeology.

 

[kikkichan]

Kikkichan,

…
The Nephite numbers are not really known, but as an example, when Christ visits them He visits a “great multitude gathered together” (3 Nephi 11:1) that turns out to be only 2,500 people total including men, women, and children. (3 Nephi 17:1) From that time in 34 AD until 385 AD, the Nephite population grows to only 230,000 people, all except 24 of whom are killed in a battle described in Mormon 6. This Nephite group most likely lived in Central America based on the descriptions in the book–one of the most prolific areas of earthquakes and volcanoes in the world. How hard would it have been for God (truly omnipotent) to “hide the evidence” of 230,000 people whose culture had degenerated because of internal apostasy, using volcanoes and earthquakes plus the pillage by the Lamanites and others of anything they could get their hands on and carry off with them?

Parker,
Thanks! In Mormon 6, 230,000 died at a battle at Cumorah. Is that also, more or less, where they lived? And Is that the same Cumorah where the the plates (plates of Mormon?) where found?

thanks,
-kc

PS apologies to the founder of this thread, because we are “way off” the original Trinity discussion.