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

[ParkerD]

Well, employing the LDS approach I was raised with and attempted, I think that years of hard work, faithful service, prayer, prayer, and more prayer, let me directly to the Person I wanted in my life in the first place when I started the whole process of seeking a testimony: God. I think that God answered my prayers by leading me to Christ in the Eucharist. What more can a person ask for than to have God himself? I think that’s the answer. It’s either that or perhaps the discovery of a Nephite coin is in my future. You never know! One day I’ll return to the Yucatan and Chiapas for another visit to the Mayan ruins. Perhaps the coin is just sitting there waiting for me, at the bottom of the sacred cenote in Chichen Itza.

In all seriousness, I’m very glad to hear what you have to say. Thank you for saying it. Not because I think God led me to Catholicism as a preparation for an eventual return to Mormonism, but because you’re one of the very few Mormons I know who take me at my word when I say I was sincere. 99% of the others blame my lack of testimony on me. Was it you who has a friend who is executive secretary to the Twelve in SLC? Maybe you can pass my story along to him in hopes that something is communicated from HQ to the membership. Comments like the one’s I received regularly from church members were infuriating and hurtful. That’s not why I left the Church, but their memory makes it extremely difficult to walk into the ward house to support my wife - who does not understand at all why I did what I did. I can’t even stand to hear the words “I’d like to bear my testimony, I know this church is true.” I just squirm in my chair when I hear them, and usually I just have to leave altogether. I attend church with my wife rarely, as a result. There are lots of people in the Church like me and those kinds of comments are alienating and push people away. So thank you for not being one of those that thinks I’m insincere.

NS

NewSeeker,
Thanks for your insights. I had mentioned such a friend, and I will pass along your story. He may or may not share it with the Twelve, as he usually lets things come up through traditionally established channels. I know he will be interested in your experience and perspective, and the poignancy with which you have expressed your very real feelings. Perhaps you could write a letter to Elder Richard G Scott, who I think would be very interested in your experiences. Address it to 47 E South Temple, SLC, 84150.

God bless you peace-wise and health-wise, though I sense how that is a tough situation in your family. It will take patience and understanding on the part of each of you.

 

[ParkerD]

God never directed Abraham to take a second wife. Culturally, it was acceptable. However, what is culturally acceptable does not define God’s Will. It is easy to see God’s Will in this matter. In the beginning, God created one man and one woman. Not 4 or 5 or 50 women for the one man.

Rebecca,
I think a light has just gone on for me in understanding your perspective. I do have a question, though (not sarcastically or facetiously, but seriously). Which wife should Jacob have married? (I assume Leah, since through her line came Jesus Christ.) Should Leah have born twelve sons, if they both had been completely righteous, or were twelve tribes not really important? (I’m just interested in your perspective, not trying to challenge it.) Thanks.

 

[cothrige]

Cothrige,
The LDS use the term “church” in several ways. There is an organization. There is a building. There is the “kingdom of God on earth.” The organization in its minutest detail is not infallible, because people are not infallible, including prophets. The direction of the Holy Spirit is infallible, but if people ask the wrong questions or do not ask enough questions or make decisions without asking any questions, even as church leaders, then the Holy Spirit will not impose God’s will. The Holy Spirit will let truth be figured out or found out when somebody is willing to ask the right probing questions.

Yes, this is true for us as well. When Catholics speak of the Church we might mean the Magisterium, or the Body of Christ generally, or the local parish. Ecclesiologically these may actually all be the same thing, the Body of Christ being indivisible just as the Lord is, but for purposes of daily speaking we might mean any of these specifically by Church.

The “kingdom of God on earth” will triumph absolutely, infallibly. People who are fallible will be a part of that process, making mistakes along the way. That does not make the “kingdom of God on earth” fallible–it means that people make mistakes and Christ redeems all of us if we are repentant and seeking to grow to be more like Him, and that He “uses” imperfect people to accomplish His purposes, which are perfect.

Yes, we feel the same. The Church is composed of sinful human beings working out their salvation with fear and trembling. All may, at any time, stumble and sin, and all will at some point. But, we are careful not to confuse infallibility, the guarantee that the doctrines of the Catholic faith are revealed by God, and impeccability, a complete absence of personal sin. Infallibility only means that a teaching is trustworthy not that the messenger is perfect or without sin.

As to the breadth of belief allowed in the LDS church, I suppose the recent constitutional controversy in California is a good example. The leaders in SLC were very clear in supporting traditional marriage. Yet many members supported the opposite position in that case, for personal reasons. They weren’t criticized, ostracized, excommunicated, badgered, or made fun of. They could still go the temple–the highest form of worship in the LDS church.

But let’s suppose that an LDS member publically opposed the change in giving priesthood to blacks, and was asked to stop but continued to publically oppose it. Then that member might be denied a temple recommend, because of public opposition to an approved scriptural doctrine accepted by the church and unitedly approved by its leaders.

If I were to publically teach that polygamy was always wrong, and that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were wrong to practice it, then I might be warned and eventually might not be allowed a temple recommend, but I don’t think I would be excommunicated.

Only a small percentage of the LDS ever practiced polygamy. Those who didn’t could still attend the temples and be fully participating members, though some leaders were specifically asked to practice it during the last half of the 1800’s.

Okay, but when certain people declared that the practice of polygamy was acceptable, or even necessary, could they have been wrong? Do you believe that it is possible that God never delivered any message to them of that kind? Or was their office enough to guarantee that the message did have a divine origin? If you, or anyone else, had publicly declared that this was error, not from God, and was a sinful practice would that be acceptable within the LDS faith? Is there any guarantee that something, anything, at any time from a Prophet is definitively from God? I don’t mean is he always right, but is he ever certain to be because of his office? Does that make sense? I hope so.

 

[why_me]

Smith was marrying other women before his claim of an angel telling him to do so.

He and Emma fought over this behavior, Smith finally had to tell Emma that God was going to destroy her if she didn’t accept his extramarital affairs as divinely ordered by God. You can find this in D&C132

This claim of JS, that anything God tells you to do is good, should be done…he said about adultery. That should be a BIG RED FLAG, at the false nature of your prophet.

I find this rather strange. It seems that you do not consider the women at all. It took to tango. Many of these women were reluctant to enter into a plural marriage with JS. And some refused at first. But then, after prayer and gaining a witness of the practice, they consented to be sealed to him. For example:

Now, bearing the burden of her own eternal salvation and that of her family, and with a deadline approaching, Lucy prayed more fervently for an answer. She couldn’t sleep the entire night. Just before dawn, and Joseph’s deadline, she “received a powerful and irristable testimony of the truth of the mariage covenant called ‘Celestial or plural mariage’” and “I afterwards married Joseph as a plural wife and lived and cohabitated with him as such.”

The above was said by Lucy Walker a plural wife of Joseph Smith.

And here is another sealed wife of JS, Zina Jacobs:

In what could be an unwitting choice of words, Compton points out the basic quandary–and a distinction apparently lost on many authors, including him. If Zina truly did see Joseph’s words as “infallible revelations direct from God,” why would she have refused his propositions when she was convinced he was a prophet? If Zina practiced plural marriage simply out of obedience to the prophet, then it makes no sense that she would have thrice turned down Joseph and instead married Henry. Indeed, Zina recounted in one of her autobiographies that

when I heard that God had revealed the law of Celestial marriage that we would have the privilege of associating in family relationships in the worlds to come, I searched the scriptures and by humble prayer to my Heavenly Father I obtained a testimony for myself that God had required that order to be established in his Church.18

In her late-life interview with John W. Wight of the RLDS Church, Zina was asked if she could provide the date of her marriage to Joseph. Her answer, while not germane to Wight’s question, gave a glimpse into why, in retrospect, Zina had been sealed to Joseph:

Q. “Can you give us the date of that marriage with Joseph Smith?”

A. “No, sir, I could not.”

Q. “Not even the year?”

A. "No, I do not remember. It was something too sacred to be talked about; it was more to me than life or death. I never breathed it for years. I will tell you the facts. I had dreams–I am no dreamer but I had dreams that I could not account for. I know this is the work of the Lord; it was revealed to me, even when young. Things were presented to my mind that I could not account for. When Joseph Smith revealed this order [Celestial marriage] I knew what it meant; the Lord was preparing my mind to receive it."19

Zina’s answer on this occasion is consistent with the view that she received revelation from God–in the form of dreams, separate and distinct from her testimony of the prophet–that convinced her of the truthfulness of polygamy. Once received, Zina fearlessly acted on this revelation, consistent with her commitment to be obedient to her God.

fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2006_Zina_and_Her_Men.html

 

[zerinus]

Yes, this is true for us as well. When Catholics speak of the Church we might mean the Magisterium, or the Body of Christ generally, or the local parish. Ecclesiologically these may actually all be the same thing, the Body of Christ being indivisible just as the Lord is, but for purposes of daily speaking we might mean any of these specifically by Church.

Yes, we feel the same. The Church is composed of sinful human beings working out their salvation with fear and trembling. All may, at any time, stumble and sin, and all will at some point. But, we are careful not to confuse infallibility, the guarantee that the doctrines of the Catholic faith are revealed by God, and impeccability, a complete absence of personal sin. Infallibility only means that a teaching is trustworthy not that the messenger is perfect or without sin.

The more important difference between our two theologies is our belief in continuing revelation, leading to an open canon of scripture. In fact, from our point of view, this is the strongest argument in favor of the Apostasy of the early Christian church.

Okay, but when certain people declared that the practice of polygamy was acceptable, or even necessary, could they have been wrong? Do you believe that it is possible that God never delivered any message to them of that kind? Or was their office enough to guarantee that the message did have a divine origin? If you, or anyone else, had publicly declared that this was error, not from God, and was a sinful practice would that be acceptable within the LDS faith? Is there any guarantee that something, anything, at any time from a Prophet is definitively from God? I don’t mean is he always right, but is he ever certain to be because of his office? Does that make sense? I hope so.

Yes; and there is an answer to it. The answer is that the theological foundation of the LDS Church is laid in the standard works of the Church—which is the name we give to our collective scriptural canon. Any doctrine that can be confirmed from that canon is official LDS doctrine. Any doctrine that cannot be, is not. That is how the validity of anyone’s teaching (be they high or low) is assessed in the Church. The only question that remains to be answered here is, What happens when God wants to reveal a new doctrine to the Church—i.e. a doctrine that is not already revealed in the standard works? There is a procedure for that. The procedure is that it is revealed to the Prophet/President of the Church, endorsed and sanctioned by his two counselors and by the Twelve Apostles, and when required voted upon and approved by the entire body of the Church, whereby it becomes part of the canonized scriptures of the Church. See here for more details.

zerinus

 

[RebeccaJ]

I find this rather strange. It seems that you do not consider the women at all. It took to tango. Many of these women were reluctant to enter into a plural marriage with JS. And some refused at first. But then, after prayer and gaining a witness of the practice, they consented to be sealed to him. For example:

As I have pointed out several times to you already whyme, consent does not make adultery a righteous action.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,
I think a light has just gone on for me in understanding your perspective. I do have a question, though (not sarcastically or facetiously, but seriously). Which wife should Jacob have married? (I assume Leah, since through her line came Jesus Christ.) Should Leah have born twelve sons, if they both had been completely righteous, or were twelve tribes not really important? (I’m just interested in your perspective, not trying to challenge it.) Thanks.

ParkerD, God does not plan sin/evil/suffering, He can and does use it for His Good. I hold no belief that our Salvation would have been thwarted by Jacob having one wife.

 

[why_me]

As I have pointed out several times to you already whyme, consent does not make adultery a righteous action.

Here is the problem: You are ignoring the testimonies of these women. They prayed about the principle of plural marriage and received a witness of its truthfulness from god.

That was my point. The women he was sealed to were willing and loyal to plural marriage because they believed in the principle. And many received a witness of its truthfulness.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Here is the problem: You are ignoring the testimonies of these women. They prayed about the principle of plural marriage and received a witness of its truthfulness from god.

That was my point. The women he was sealed to were willing and loyal to plural marriage because they believed in the principle. And many received a witness of its truthfulness.

Yes, and there are Mormons who have received a divine witness to kill people. Do I believe either comes from God? No.

 

[ParkerD]

Okay, but (1) when certain people declared that the practice of polygamy was acceptable, or even necessary, could they have been wrong? Do you believe that it is possible that God never delivered any message to them of that kind? (2) Or was their office enough to guarantee that the message did have a divine origin? (3) If you, or anyone else, had publicly declared that this was error, not from God, and was a sinful practice would that be acceptable within the LDS faith? (4) Is there any guarantee that something, anything, at any time from a Prophet is definitively from God? (5) I don’t mean is he always right, but is he ever certain to be because of his office? Does that make sense? I hope so.

Cothrige,
If it had not been for Abraham and Jacob (particularly Jacob from whom the twelve tribes sprang and are talked about all throughout the Old Testament as a covenant people), then I would question whether Joseph Smith had been divinely guided. So I do believe in precedent from the scriptures. If not for the precedent about polygamy, I would have reason to question, and would.

I am familiar enough with JS and his writings that I trust implicitly that he told the truth. The kind of severe hardships his family went through because of his not backing down from what he was asked to do by revelation or by angels, is another solid evidence for me that he told the truth. He loved his children and he loved Emma.

I think Joseph Smith was in a unique position with respect to revealed doctrine in the LDS church, and also Wilford Woodruff in the matter of rescinding polygamy. The early LDS church did not have a unified twelve or a unified first presidency (there were mavericks among them or men who thought they knew more than Joseph Smith knew) during most of the early years. I trust JS because the Lord trusted JS and the doctrines have all been confirmed by the Holy Ghost to me personally. (As to polygamy, that was for a limited period of time and was a test of faith for a certain segment of people–gladly not me. So was the rescinding of the practice by Wilford Woodruff a test of faith for a certain segment.)

But today and in 1978, there is/was a unified first presidency and a unified twelve, so I am confident that revealed doctrine and revealed changes in specific practices related to implementing doctrine, will come by the united approving “voice of agreement” of this entire group. This is a “balance of power” built-in mechanism.

I hope that answered question 1. (also 4 and 5)

(2) Because I have experienced the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon both doctrinally and by confirming personal revelation many times, and because I as an English major know experientially about writing fiction and about trying to write using changes in dialogue patterns and syntax for different speakers, I trust that Joseph Smith was chosen by God who would have known whether he was going to be a “fit vessel” for the entire period of the restoration process, which took many years. So the “office” wasn’t the guarantee, but the existence of the Book of Mormon is (speaking only for myself).

(3) It would depend on how vehemently and what I did to oppose that. If I stated it as a personal opinion, and didn’t stir up opposition by inciting it or publishing articles talking about “false prophets” and so forth, I think I would have been left alone. But William Law, for example, opposed polygamy in a very rabble-rousing way which he knew could easily bring harm to many people, including to Joseph Smith.

I am hoping that I answered your questions 4 and 5 by my above responses to questions 1 and 2, including the “balance of power” concept that is actually more of a balance than, say, the U.S. Supreme Court, because these brethren don’t move forward with policy changes unless they have come to a unified agreement, and they do disagree before they get there. The inspiration/revelation come after much discussion, prayer, fasting, and deliberation including using scriptural knowledge.

Long answer, but those were some deep questions.

 

[ParkerD]

Yes, and there are Mormons who have received a divine witness to kill people. Do I believe either comes from God? No.

Rebecca,
I wondered how long it would take for someone to bring that up. Those who have thought such (whether they were Mormons or way in the distant past, Catholics since the shoe happens to fit) were not listening to the light of Christ or the Holy Ghost or scriptural precedent. They were being deceived through their own pride and selfish desires–no question about it at all.

Peace, all. I think I for one have written enough here.

 

[dianaiad]

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.

Ah, the ‘true Christian’ strikes again.

Well, we are Christians, and we believe this (well, not quite—I personally am going for a universe, not a measly world–) therefore Christians believe this.

I am a Christian because I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ as I believe them to be, and claim to be a Christian.

That’s why you are. Since you also pray for intercession to Mary and other dead people, then Christians do that, too (in spite of Protestants who say otherwise.)

 

[dianaiad]

Yes, and there are Mormons who have received a divine witness to kill people. Do I believe either comes from God? No.

More Catholics have received such a ‘witness’ than Mormons have, and to more lethal intent. Neither matter has anything at all to do with a real witness of truth.

Or…how about you. Why DO you believe Jesus to be the Christ, anyway, Rebecca?

Please do not insult us all by saying that the bible says so.

 

[dianaiad]

Rebecca,
I wondered how long it would take for someone to bring that up. Those who have thought such (whether they were Mormons or way in the distant past, Catholics since the shoe happens to fit) were not listening to the light of Christ or the Holy Ghost or scriptural precedent. They were being deceived through their own pride and selfish desires–no question about it at all.

Peace, all. I think I for one have written enough here.

You are very late to the party, Parker. This comes up frequently. There is a standard response; sort of a choreographed dance we have to get through until we get to the meat of the argument.

 

[RebeccaJ]

More Catholics have received such a ‘witness’ than Mormons have, and to more lethal intent. Neither matter has anything at all to do with a real witness of truth.

No Catholic, no matter how sinful, taught their “witness” as DOCTRINE. Commanded by God, by visitation from angels no less. No Catholic believes any leader, clergy, lay person who has committed adultery, is the example for their own lives!

Or…how about you. Why DO you believe Jesus to be the Christ, anyway, Rebecca?

Holy Spirit PLUS reason. It is not reasonable to believe God says, “thou shalt not commit adultery”, and then proceed to command the very same thing. When I say God is Good, part of that Good is that He does not command sin.

Please do not insult us all by saying that the bible says so.

I’m sorry you find the Bible insulting. I believe it to be the Word of God.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Ah, the ‘true Christian’ strikes again.

Well, we are Christians, and we believe this (well, not quite—I personally am going for a universe, not a measly world–) therefore Christians believe this.

I am a Christian because I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ as I believe them to be, and claim to be a Christian.

That’s why you are. Since you also pray for intercession to Mary and other dead people, then Christians do that, too (in spite of Protestants who say otherwise.)

Seems we always come to the point where everyone should bow to your convictions, while having none of their own.

 

[dianaiad]

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

Actually, It’s Catholic Answers>Forums>Non-Catholic Religions.

You know, an entire forum dedicated to the discussion of what religions other than Catholicism believes.

 

[dianaiad]

No Catholic, no matter how sinful, taught their “witness” as DOCTRINE. Commanded by God, by visitation from angels no less. No Catholic believes any leader, clergy, lay person who has committed adultery, is the example for their own lives!

Equivocate much, Rebecca? You talk about murder, I respond about murder, and suddenly you are talking about something altogether different?

C’mon. Stay on task here.

Holy Spirit PLUS reason. It is not reasonable to believe God says, “thou shalt not commit adultery”, and then proceed to command the very same thing. When I say God is Good, part of that Good is that He does not command sin.

I’m sorry you find the Bible insulting. I believe it to be the Word of God.

Well, we do have a problem with your aghast claim that God intended ‘adultery’ to mean ‘more than one wife.’

Remember David? He didn’t get in trouble for having more than one wife or concubine. Neither did Solomon, come to think of it.

 

[dianaiad]

Seems we always come to the point where everyone should bow to your convictions, while having none of their own.

Only when I’m right, Rebecca.

Only when I’m right.

…come to think of it, isn’t that what YOU want? For me to admit that I am not a Christian because YOU say so? At least I am not attempting to deny that YOU have faith in Christ, or are Christian.

 

[CJ_Nick]

Only when I’m right, Rebecca.

Only when I’m right.

…come to think of it, isn’t that what YOU want? For me to admit that I am not a Christian because YOU say so? At least I am not attempting to deny that YOU have faith in Christ, or are Christian.

Hello Dianaiad,

I know that I am not Rebecca but I thought I would chime in for 2 reasons. 1- so you wouldn’t have 4 posts in a row ( LOL ) and 2- to let you know that I, for one, appreciate your contributions and enormous efforts on the boards.

Peace,
CJ