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.
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.
Okay, I can see what you are getting at there, though I still have a hard time believing God would engage in such acts. Assuming you are right in your basic position that God doesn’t want such proof, I can’t help but think he could have provided some other means for carrying things out than actually having to cover up any archaeological remains left behind by a culture. For instance, it would seem that simply allowing archaeological evidence to be discovered a couple of hundred years ago could have done it just fine.

And, more to the point, I would have a hard time accepting your position regarding proof of a religion. I don’t think that such agrees with what has been revealed countless times in the scriptures. Consider all the many people who witnessed Christ’s miracles. They saw first-hand what he could do, and much more directly than an old coin would do now. And, it might be noted that many still didn’t or wouldn’t believe, even then, and Christ castigated them for it you may recall. But, God still revealed himself to them. In the Old Testament Elias brought down fire out of heaven in a very public God-to-god showdown. That doesn’t seem to fit at all with your perceived restriction on public confirmation of faith. I just see no reason to suspect that God insists on hiding himself from public knowledge. And I believe that even in the face of such archaeological evidence, unless a person respond to grace they will still persist in unbelief. I don’t think you can prove God even with such things. Human doubt will always find a way.
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.
I understand. I respect that entirely, and I agree. Biblical archaeology has, I am confident, never brought even one person to belief. Evidence exists of the Hebrew people, and that doesn’t prove God or their faith in the least. Miracles are also all around us, one need only look. So I just don’t see the need for any divine cover-up in the first place.
 
Parker,
Thanks! In Mormon 6, 230,000 died at a battle at Cumorah. (1) Is that also, more or less, where they lived? (2) And Is that the same Cumorah where the the plates (plates of Mormon?) were found?

thanks,
-kc
PS apologies to the founder of this thread, because we are “way off” the original Trinity discussion.:o
Kikkichan,
Yes, it appears from the text that that is definitely where they lived. See Mormon 1:3 and 6-10. Also see Ether 8:3. There is a hill Shim where records are stored, and a hill Cumorah or Ramah (as the Jaredites called it), and both of those hills are located fairly close to Zarahemla, which would place them in Central America.

The answer to question 2 is a definite “no”. Again, the hill Cumorah for the Nephites was clearly in Central America. After the battle where his father is killed, Moroni says he ends up wandering “withersoever I can” (Moroni 1:3) for safety, and is eventually able to fashion more plates to write more than he had had room for on the plates that his father had fashioned. He must have either taken the plates at some point all the way from Central America to upstate New York (we’re talking 30 years of time for this one prophet, Moroni, living by himself, wandering and escaping from Lamanite detection), or else he was allowed by God to move the record to the hill in upstate New York near where Joseph Smith lived for the record to be revealed in its then-hiding place in 1823.
 
The Catholic Church has been answering the question the same way since Christ taught it to us. The answer will never change.
Actually, the answer has changed for the entire Protestant world and the Mormons as well. Thus the reason we still ask the question in the first place.
 
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
Eleven witnesses is evidence.

They saw a golden book with strange and unusual characters on it that appeared to be ancient. They never denied their testimony. Now unless the book they saw was created by Joseph in some miraculous “boy finds goldmine in secret and learns how to forge gold plates and write strange characters on them to prove he can translate them into a book of scripture” kind of story. Then those witnesses are acceptable as evidence, right?
 
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
Here is a scripture:
1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:1-5)
Now compare verse three and verse five again. Jesus didn’t repeat himself, he said something completely different.

Verse three says, " Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Before a man can even “see” the kingdom of God he must have some sort of awakening-- He must be born again. That is just to “see” the kingdom of God and recognize it and understand that it is there.

Then when a man “sees” the kingdom and desires to enter it, he must be “born” once again. This time of “water” and the “spirit.” For, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot ***enter ***into the kingdom of God.”

So, to your point NS, you must be born again before you can even recognize what you are missing. This new birth can only come from God, whatever the medium may be, and (in my opinion) is a requirement before you should be baptized. That is one reason I do not believe in infant baptism.

We send missionaries out to find those who have been born again and baptize them. But we also send them to those who have yet to experience this rebirth and try to help them “see” the kingdom of God by preaching the everlasting gospel to them.
 
It’s not good (or possible), but it’s an option… 🙂
Really? Why is that? Don’t you accept that your Church is infallible? Why would it be harder, much less worse, if God chooses a Magisterium rather than a prophet?
 
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.

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.

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.
I am just amazed as “informed” as all of you seem to be that none of you have ever visited Mexico. Along the Yucatan there are thousands of sites where the stories from the Book of Mormon may be verified and corroborated. You should really take a trip down there sometime.

There is no archeological evidence…? psha.
 
I am just amazed as “informed” as all of you seem to be that none of you have ever visited Mexico. Along the Yucatan there are thousands of sites where the stories from the Book of Mormon may be verified and corroborated. You should really take a trip down there sometime.

There is no archeological evidence…? psha.
Do I have to travel there? Is there anywhere online or in print that one can read about this, or see it? I would be quite curious to see what it is. I can’t exactly jump down to the Yucatan. 😃
 
Eleven witnesses is evidence.

They saw a golden book with strange and unusual characters on it that appeared to be ancient. They never denied their testimony. Now unless the book they saw was created by Joseph in some miraculous “boy finds goldmine in secret and learns how to forge gold plates and write strange characters on them to prove he can translate them into a book of scripture” kind of story. Then those witnesses are acceptable as evidence, right?
No. James J. Strang also produced plates and eleven witnesses who never denied their testimonies. Which group of witnesses was duped or lying? The two groups of eleven cancel each other out. Got anything else?

NS
 
Really? Why is that? Don’t you accept that your Church is infallible? Why would it be harder, much less worse, if God chooses a Magisterium rather than a prophet?
Absolutely not. We have never claimed infallibility.

There is old adage among Mormons:

“The Mormons claim their church is fallible and no one believes them. The Catholics claim their church is infallible and no one believes them.”

The church is the people. People are not perfect. But under the direction of God, we can do his will. His will is perfect.
 
Do I have to travel there? Is there anywhere online or in print that one can read about this, or see it? I would be quite curious to see what it is. I can’t exactly jump down to the Yucatan. 😃
Actually, there are lots of books on it, if you can stomach a “Mormon” author… 😉

My in-laws visited Chichen Itza and several other places. Check out almaldstours.com/html/index.html

It shows where they go and you can Google all the places for more info.
 
Absolutely not. We have never claimed infallibility.

There is old adage among Mormons:

“The Mormons claim their church is fallible and no one believes them. The Catholics claim their church is infallible and no one believes them.”

The church is the people. People are not perfect. But under the direction of God, we can do his will. His will is perfect.
Earlier, you said that you believed that God is three persons united in purpose, but not in being. You rejected the Trinity. So, how do you know? Who told you? How can you be sure they are right? And you say that you have a Prophet. How do you know that? How do you know which person is the Prophet? And how do you know that what he is even a real prophet?
 
No. James J. Strang also produced plates and eleven witnesses who never denied their testimonies. Which group of witnesses was duped or lying? The two groups of eleven cancel each other out. Got anything else?

NS
Never heard of him or his plates. By their fruits ye shall know them, right? How many copies have been produced of Mr. Strang’s book? Did he produce a translation or just plates…

Hardly a strong argument against the Book of Mormon. Sorry, NS.
 
Earlier, you said that you believed that God is three persons united in purpose, but not in being. You rejected the Trinity. So, how do you know? Who told you? How can you be sure they are right? And you say that you have a Prophet. How do you know that? How do you know which person is the Prophet? And how do you know that what he is even a real prophet?
Now you are asking the right questions, Cothrige. And when you ask the right questions, you are on your way to getting the right answers.
 
Okay, I can see what you are getting at there, though I still have a hard time believing God would engage in such acts. Assuming you are right in your basic position that God doesn’t want such proof, I can’t help but think he could have provided some other means for carrying things out than actually having to cover up any archaeological remains left behind by a culture. For instance, it would seem that simply allowing archaeological evidence to be discovered a couple of hundred years ago could have done it just fine.

And, more to the point, I would have a hard time accepting your position regarding proof of a religion. I don’t think that such agrees with what has been revealed countless times in the scriptures. Consider all the many people who witnessed Christ’s miracles. They saw first-hand what he could do, and much more directly than an old coin would do now. And, it might be noted that many still didn’t or wouldn’t believe, even then, and Christ castigated them for it you may recall. (I actually don’t recall this.) But, God still revealed himself to them. In the Old Testament Elias brought down fire out of heaven in a very public God-to-god showdown. That doesn’t seem to fit at all with your perceived restriction on public confirmation of faith. I just see no reason to suspect that God insists on hiding himself from public knowledge. And I believe that even in the face of such archaeological evidence, unless a person respond to grace they will still persist in unbelief. I don’t think you can prove God even with such things. Human doubt will always find a way.

I understand. I respect that entirely, and I agree. Biblical archaeology has, I am confident, never brought even one person to belief. Evidence exists of the Hebrew people, and that doesn’t prove God or their faith in the least. Miracles are also all around us, one need only look. So I just don’t see the need for any divine cover-up in the first place.
Cothrige,
My experience and my observation of how the Savior taught as well as the passage 1 Kings 18-19 about Elijah and the false prophets, says to me that the Lord wants our faith to progress. The Savior fed the 5000 and the 4000, then when they wanted more loaves and fishes and He didn’t supply it to them, they “went away” (meaning they didn’t continue to listen to Him), and he asked his disciples, “will you also go away?” They had greater understanding about His mission. It was more than to feed their hunger. This they knew by experiences of the heart.

When the woman was healed by touching the hem of His garment, and He asked “who touched me?”, it was her faith that had secured the blessing of being healed.

He often asked a person wanting to be healed, or the parent or the friends or siblings, about their faith before He would perform a miracle of healing. He was generally not doing these miracles “to be seen of men.” That would be in direct contradiction to His own teaching about doing alms and about fasting and about praying in public.

Elijah did the “public performance,” but it was really in desperation because no one believed he was really a prophet. 1 Kings 19 makes it clear that the Lord was manifest in “a still small voice.” (v. 12) The young prophet Samuel also “heard” a small voice, and was told to say, “speak, Lord, for thy servant heareth.”

If you read Joel 2:28-32, you find a scripture about what should be happening on earth close to the time before the Second Coming of Christ. “I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:”

If you read Hosea 2:18-23 and Hosea 3, you will read of both an apostasy and a restoration (“for the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, …and without a sacrifice,…and shall fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter days.”). (See 2:23 also.)

In these latter days of the history of the world before the Second Coming of Christ, I think the Lord expects that the House of Israel will have made the progress that was prophesied by so many Old Testament prophets. Faith is a part of that progress. It is not retrogressing to have great faith, and to seek faith. Consider Hebrews 11. Faith is a desirable quality.

Peace to you and all.
 
Does that mean you are going to give an answer? 🙂
Cothrige,
Since the two of us are doing a tandem set of responses here, I suppose I wouldn’t be out of place to respond:

I know by the same still small voice that Elijah was aware of. I know by the same “spiritual discernment” that Paul clearly describes in 1 Cor. 2:13-14. It is “that which the Holy Ghost teacheth.”

I also “know them by their fruits” (Matt. 7:16), as to the living prophet and the twelve apostles today and their actions and teachings.

I have also confirmed the teachings by living them in my own life, such as teaching my children actively and having daily family prayer, living frugally and conservatively and getting out of the stock market with my 401K before the big downturn. Why? Because I was listening to a prophet’s counsel.
 
No. James J. Strang also produced plates and eleven witnesses who never denied their testimonies. Which group of witnesses was duped or lying? The two groups of eleven cancel each other out. Got anything else?

NS
Not exactly. Strang copied the JS story to a tee. And yes, some members did follow him after Joseph Smith was murdered. Strang claimed that he should lead the church when it was reported that Smith died. Strang was murdered by one of his own flock on Beaver Island and some of the witnesses recanted. You can read the story here:

en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Strangite_parallels

However, you can read this about the book of mormon witnesses:

fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2004_Explaining_Away_the_Book_of_Mormon_Witnesses.html

Wow what a difference. 🙂

en.fairmormon.org/James_Strang
 
Never heard of him or his plates. By their fruits ye shall know them, right? How many copies have been produced of Mr. Strang’s book? Did he produce a translation or just plates…

Hardly a strong argument against the Book of Mormon. Sorry, NS.
See my post above. You will need to know something about him…if you will engage in apologetics. 🙂 Also, have a look at the fairwiki on fairlds.org
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top