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

[cothrige]

Thank you. It looks like we have come to some kind of an understanding then. Are there any other areas of LDS theology that you are not clear about, that you would like to understand better?

zerinus

Probably, but my questions arise in the hearing. As I read what people say, I ask about it, discuss it, get it clarified and so on. That is what happened on this thread. Pretty interesting in the end too, if you ask me.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Scott,
I think I have understood your question, but it sounds to me like you’re “pulling Someone’s leg”. God spoke to Old Testament prophets, Christ confirmed those Old Testament prophets’ teachings, added to them, and the Apostles confirmed the doctrine of Christ and added the revelation that the “new covenant” gospel including baptism should go to the Gentile nations and people.

God spoke to Book of Mormon (American continent) prophets, Christ confirmed those teachings and added to them (including bringing them the “new covenant gospel” as the resurrected God the Son when He visited them, and He also visited the other lost tribes of Israel. Perhaps one was in Australia–it’s possible. If so, and if the prophetic writings of the prophets of those people were to come forth to the world, they would be consistent with both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. This is obvious to me, having read both the Bible and the Book of Mormon often enough to understand both.

A question has been asked about the “open cannon of scripture.” We expect to have the writings of other prophets of the lost ten tribes some day. We also have added scriptural cannon from 1978 and from a 1918 vision that was important enough to be added to the Doctrine and Covenants because it added additional light and knowledge to the world about the spirit world after we die.

Thank you again. No I am not pull someone leg. To start with one has to except the BOM as scripture ( which I do not) one would also have to except that at least at some point in history there were one or more Israelite tribes living in the Americas (which I don’t). Then once you have excepted these things you would then be up to excepting in say another 1600 years or so another tribe and etc… to come forth. plus having to add all that they have written to and any new revelation they have received. I see that as the kind of thinking that gave us Jim Jone’s and whats his name with the branch dividians.

 

[ParkerD]

Thank you again. No I am not pull someone leg. To start with one has to except the BOM as scripture ( which I do not) one would also have to except that at least at some point in history there were one or more Israelite tribes living in the Americas (which I don’t). Then once you have excepted these things you would then be up to excepting in say another 1600 years or so another tribe and etc… to come forth. plus having to add all that they have written to and any new revelation they have received. I see that as the kind of thinking that gave us Jim Jone’s and whats his name with the branch dividians.

Scott,
That is because you do not understand the Holy Ghost, and I would have to assume have never felt His presence in your life guiding you. You fear something you know nothing about. But you’re certainly on safer ground with Catholicism than thinking you would otherwise follow any Tom, David, or Harry who tried to rally a group of followers. So stay with what you have, by all means.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Scott,
That is because you do not understand the Holy Ghost, and I would have to assume have never felt His presence in your life guiding you. You fear something you know nothing about. But you’re certainly on safer ground with Catholicism than thinking you would otherwise follow any Tom, David, or Harry who tried to rally a group of followers. So stay with what you have, by all means.

ParkerD,

To the second part of your post I agree. There can be no safer place to be then in the arms of Mother Church. I fear nothing. That does not mean I am blind to the dangers. There are extreme dangers in the practice of having a open cannon. That is why the cannon of the Church was closed. That does not mean that revelation has ended, but that they must be measured against scripture and may have been form no one but the one reveled to.

As to my knowledge and experience of the Holy Ghost. That is neither part of the post nor relative to the discussion. I was asking a question about the LDS position and the dangers that it presents.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD,

To the second part of your post I agree. There can be no safer place to be then in the arms of Mother Church. I fear nothing. That does not mean I am blind to the dangers. There are extreme dangers in the practice of having a open cannon. That is why the cannon of the Church was closed. That does not mean that revelation has ended, but that they must be measured against scripture and may have been form no one but the one reveled to.

As to my knowledge and experience of the Holy Ghost. That is neither part of the post nor relative to the discussion. I was asking a question about the LDS position and the dangers that it presents.

Scott,
I’m glad you don’t fear the LDS church. I assure you that there is nothing to fear about that church or those people, nor about revelation and the Holy Ghost guiding them which happens every day.

Paul of Tarsus thought the same thing you are thinking about a closed cannon. So did the people who stoned Stephen:

“ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye…” (Acts 7:51)

“But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,” (Acts 7:55)

One can read the Bible and be truly enlightened by it, if one chooses to: “he that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” But it is each person’s choice in the matter. Peace to you.

 

[why_me]

I don’t think our Mormon friends will ever understand any of this until they are willing to experience Catholicism in the Catholic Church without the social pressures of Mormonism. The social pressure starts from the day they are born or from the day they let the Mormon missionaries into their lives. The Mormon missionary gives them a hard sell and tries to manipulate them into feeling the Book of Mormon is true. If you are born in the LDS Church you are told that to be worthy you have to have a testimony of the Book of Mormon. It is impossible to present the truth to them unless they experience the peace of Christ as I did at a Catholic mass in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The best way to understand the Trinity is to experience the Trinity, and I think that’s best done praying in Eucharistic Adoration in a Catholic chapel or attending mass regularly. Until a Mormon is willing to open up to these types of experiences arguing about the Trinity is useless.

Nice try. I don’t see any social pressures within mormonism. The missionaries do not give a hard sell but they do tell people who are interested some of the basics of lds beliefs. Nor is there any manipulation involved. If a peson is asked to pray about the book of mormon to see if its true, I see no manipulation. It is only between god and that person praying. I had the missionary experience and when they thouht that I was ready they asked me to pray about the book of mormon. I did and received a powerful witness. But there was no pressure. And to be worthy you do not need a testimony of the book of mormon. You just need to be following Christ and keep his commandments.

 

[Scriptorian]

ParkerD,

To the second part of your post I agree. There can be no safer place to be then in the arms of Mother Church. I fear nothing. That does not mean I am blind to the dangers. There are extreme dangers in the practice of having a open cannon. That is why the cannon of the Church was closed. That does not mean that revelation has ended, but that they must be measured against scripture and may have been form no one but the one reveled to.

As to my knowledge and experience of the Holy Ghost. That is neither part of the post nor relative to the discussion. I was asking a question about the LDS position and the dangers that it presents.

An open canon is only dangerous if your prophet is not truly called of God and does not receive revelation. Mormons see no danger in entrusting their canon to their true prophet. That would be like thinking the letters of Paul might be in error doctrinally. Or that Peter couldn’t be trusted to publicize his sermons.

Revelation is only possible through the Holy Ghost. Without him, there would be no scripture or true canon.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

An open canon is only dangerous if your prophet is not truly called of God and does not receive revelation. Mormons see no danger in entrusting their canon to their true prophet. That would be like thinking the letters of Paul might be in error doctrinally. Or that Peter couldn’t be trusted to publicize his sermons.

Revelation is only possible through the Holy Ghost. Without him, there would be no scripture or true canon.

And there in lies the biggest problem with J Smith and the BOM etc… I do not believe the Holy Ghost had anything to do with either.

Also remember it was not St Paul nor ST Peter that declared wht they wrote as Scripture it was the Church much later that did so. It is this very thing of the writer declare his own writings as scripture that I see as the real big danger.

 

[ParkerD]

And there in lies the biggest problem with J Smith and the BOM etc… I do not believe the Holy Ghost had anything to do with either.

Also remember it was not St Paul nor ST Peter that declared wht they wrote as Scripture it was the Church much later that did so. It is this very thing of the writer declare his own writings as scripture that I see as the real big danger.

Scott,
I think I can see where you are coming from, but who wrote the first five books of the Old Testament, and who wrote the book of Revelation, and how did they write those things that they wrote?

 

[Scriptorian]

And there in lies the biggest problem with J Smith and the BOM etc… I do not believe the Holy Ghost had anything to do with either.

Also remember it was not St Paul nor ST Peter that declared wht they wrote as Scripture it was the Church much later that did so. It is this very thing of the writer declare his own writings as scripture that I see as the real big danger.

Well, you are in luck then! Because Joseph Smith did not write the Book of Mormon. Neither did he choose to make his own revelations part of the canon of scripture. That was the decision of the church!

So, we’re good.

As far as the Holy Ghost being involved with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, I must disagree with you. I cannot read a passage from either one without feeling the Holy Ghost witness that what is said is true. I am sorry, but if you have read their words and have not felt the power of Holy Ghost, you must not be familiar with the Holy Ghost.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Scott,
I think I can see where you are coming from, but who wrote the first five books of the Old Testament, and who wrote the book of Revelation, and how did they write those things that they wrote?

St John wrote Revelation and was debated for hundreds of years if it should be included in the cannon. As for the First 5 of the OT Moses is is given credit, but there is a slight problem in that he could not have written all of them as they contain things that happened after his death. Regardless unlike J Smith when Moses wrote what he Did we have the proof of witnesses that he was going up on Gods mountain, He had also been the instrument through which God brought the Israelite s out of Egypt and from Exodus on what is recorded is a record of what they experienced the Law as given. Also God had shown to all that Moses was his chosen messenger prior to giving the message.
Back to St Johns Revelation Again here is someone that walked with Christ one of the chosen 12 Whom Jesus was very close to so we have his authority given by Christ in the Gospels as a weight to measure what he wrote.

J Smith has non of this to back him up. Nor does anything he wrote. What was given by Moses the people could weigh against what they knew from God as it was given from father to Son in the telling of the people. we have none of the with the Book of Mormon. What we have is a man with a questionable background to say the least. And that is not saying that he could not have been a instrument of God because of that. All only in the woods given a book written in in a language that there is no other record of about a people that their is no other record of. To my knowledge one one other than Smith ever saw the Angles that gave or took the tablets to and from him to just got peeks at the tablets and to watch him translate them in a most particular way.

Not that God could not have done what J Smith says and what is written in the BOM could not be true it just all the 6000 year previous history of faith says God don’t work that way in reveling himself to us.

See if I look at the nativity story by itself I have all kinds of problems. But when put which the old testament prophecies and the Crucifixion they all bare witness to each other.

 

[zerinus]

And there in lies the biggest problem with J Smith and the BOM etc… I do not believe the Holy Ghost had anything to do with either.

Some people might say that about the Bible.

Also remember it was not St Paul nor ST Peter that declared wht they wrote as Scripture it was the Church much later that did so.

Every prophet has declared his words to be scripture. The OT prophets often declared their words to be scripture. When they said that the Lord had declared this and that to them, that means that they were not speaking their own words, but the words of the Lord, which means scripture. The NT prophets also did the same. Peter declared the writings of Paul to be scripture. Both Peter and Paul declared that they had seen visions and revelations, in which they received instruction from the Lord, which makes what they wrote scripture.

It is this very thing of the writer declare his own writings as scripture that I see as the real big danger.

Then you must have a problem with the Bible, because they all declared their writings to be scripture. The truth is that whenever there has been a true religion on the earth, the channel of communication between heaven and earth has been open, which results in an open canon of scripture. It is only when a religion dies that the channel of communication is broken, and the canon becomes closed.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

St John wrote Revelation and was debated for hundreds of years if it should be included in the cannon. As for the First 5 of the OT Moses is is given credit, but there is a slight problem in that he could not have written all of them as they contain things that happened after his death. Regardless unlike J Smith when Moses wrote what he Did we have the proof of witnesses that he was going up on Gods mountain, He had also been the instrument through which God brought the Israelite s out of Egypt and from Exodus on what is recorded is a record of what they experienced the Law as given. Also God had shown to all that Moses was his chosen messenger prior to giving the message.
Back to St Johns Revelation Again here is someone that walked with Christ one of the chosen 12 Whom Jesus was very close to so we have his authority given by Christ in the Gospels as a weight to measure what he wrote.

J Smith has non of this to back him up. Nor does anything he wrote. What was given by Moses the people could weigh against what they knew from God as it was given from father to Son in the telling of the people. we have none of the with the Book of Mormon. What we have is a man with a questionable background to say the least. And that is not saying that he could not have been a instrument of God because of that. All only in the woods given a book written in in a language that there is no other record of about a people that their is no other record of. To my knowledge one one other than Smith ever saw the Angles that gave or took the tablets to and from him to just got peeks at the tablets and to watch him translate them in a most particular way.

Not that God could not have done what J Smith says and what is written in the BOM could not be true it just all the 6000 year previous history of faith says God don’t work that way in reveling himself to us.

See if I look at the nativity story by itself I have all kinds of problems. But when put which the old testament prophecies and the Crucifixion they all bare witness to each other.

God revealed Himself to Joseph Smith in exactly the same way in which He had done to the Old and the New Testament prophets and Apostles.

zerinus

 

[mormonpro]

Scott,
I’m glad you don’t fear the LDS church. I assure you that there is nothing to fear about that church or those people, nor about revelation and the Holy Ghost guiding them which happens every day.

Paul of Tarsus thought the same thing you are thinking about a closed cannon. So did the people who stoned Stephen:

“ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye…” (Acts 7:51)

“But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,” (Acts 7:55)

One can read the Bible and be truly enlightened by it, if one chooses to: “he that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” But it is each person’s choice in the matter. Peace to you.

To Parker and others here who see no danger in LDS revelation, let me point out a major danger. The Highest act of Satanism is to kill as innocent a child as possible (Preferably in the womb). This ritual entails Praying and receiving a so–called 'super–natural instruction to kill a child, This is nothing new, satan has had success with these murders in the past, even among those who devoutly believed they were Gods chosen people. “Yea they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, and shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters…” (Psalms 106:37-38) Some have even been so bold as to suggest that Abraham did the same thing when he was tested by God, with his son Isaac. The Bible however shows that this was a one time 'test and God never intended for Abraham to actually kill his own son, it would have broken Gods own laws. (Gen. 22) During the thousands of years history the bible covers, this test was never repeated.
However the Mormons Holy Ghost through President Gordon
B. Hinckley in 1998 publicly announced the current position of the LDS Church on Abortion; “While we denounce it, we make allowance in such circumstances as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have serious defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But such instances are rare, and there is only a negligible probability of their occurring. In these circumstances those who face the question are asked to consult with their local ecclesiastical leaders and to pray in great earnestness, receiving a confirmation through prayer before proceeding.” (Exact quote from The Ensign Nov.1998 pg.71 see also The First Presidencies General Handbook of Instructions pages 10-4 & 11-4)
In review of this statement we see that first, Mr. Hinckley denounces abortions and in the same breath makes allowances for what he denounces. Next he lists 5 cases (i.e. 1.rape 2.incest 3.Jeopardy to the life of the Mother 4. Jeopardy to the health of the mother. 5.Severe deformity.)
Remembering that only God can place a child in the womb for whatever purpose is known to him and that the purpose of an abortion is to bring forth a dead child, we ask, would Jesus tell a woman he allows them to kill a totally innocent child because someone injured them by rape or incest? Many Mormons argue devoutly for abortions where the mothers life is at risk, (while at the same time ignoring the other four cases their church allows) is it loving the child as she loves herself for a mother to ensure that her child dies because her life is at risk? Wouldn’t the council of the Catholic church that if you are determined that the child must come forth to save the mother, do not kill it first, but rather bring it forth alive and give it every chance to live, uphold loving as we love ourselves? Mormons determination that the child must be killed is a strange and evil blood lust. HEALTH is a term used by the abortion industry to uphold an abortion for virtually any medical or psychological reason. Roughly 95 percent of all abortions in Utah and nationwide are done using Therapeutic (Health) as a reason, In 1997 (the year of Hinckleys announcement) Utah had 3,054 of 3,140 total. (source; Utah Dept. Of Health, Bureau of Vital Records ph. 801–538–6301 free technical report)
Knowing that God has always forbidden such sacrifices of children, isn’t it obvious where Mormons got the inspiration allowing abortions and where Mormon parents are getting their inspiration to follow through and actually kill children?

 

[zerinus]

To Parker and others here who see no danger in LDS revelation, let me point out a major danger. The Highest act of Satanism is to kill as innocent a child as possible (Preferably in the womb). This ritual entails Praying and receiving a so–called 'super–natural instruction to kill a child, This is nothing new, satan has had success with these murders in the past, even among those who devoutly believed they were Gods chosen people. “Yea they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, and shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters…” (Psalms 106:37-38) Some have even been so bold as to suggest that Abraham did the same thing when he was tested by God, with his son Isaac. The Bible however shows that this was a one time 'test and God never intended for Abraham to actually kill his own son, it would have broken Gods own laws. (Gen. 22) During the thousands of years history the bible covers, this test was never repeated.
However the Mormons Holy Ghost through President Gordon
B. Hinckley in 1998 publicly announced the current position of the LDS Church on Abortion; “While we denounce it, we make allowance in such circumstances as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have serious defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But such instances are rare, and there is only a negligible probability of their occurring. In these circumstances those who face the question are asked to consult with their local ecclesiastical leaders and to pray in great earnestness, receiving a confirmation through prayer before proceeding.” (Exact quote from The Ensign Nov.1998 pg.71 see also The First Presidencies General Handbook of Instructions pages 10-4 & 11-4)
In review of this statement we see that first, Mr. Hinckley denounces abortions and in the same breath makes allowances for what he denounces. Next he lists 5 cases (i.e. 1.rape 2.incest 3.Jeopardy to the life of the Mother 4. Jeopardy to the health of the mother. 5.Severe deformity.)
Remembering that only God can place a child in the womb for whatever purpose is known to him and that the purpose of an abortion is to bring forth a dead child, we ask, would Jesus tell a woman he allows them to kill a totally innocent child because someone injured them by rape or incest? Many Mormons argue devoutly for abortions where the mothers life is at risk, (while at the same time ignoring the other four cases their church allows) is it loving the child as she loves herself for a mother to ensure that her child dies because her life is at risk? Wouldn’t the council of the Catholic church that if you are determined that the child must come forth to save the mother, do not kill it first, but rather bring it forth alive and give it every chance to live, uphold loving as we love ourselves? Mormons determination that the child must be killed is a strange and evil blood lust. HEALTH is a term used by the abortion industry to uphold an abortion for virtually any medical or psychological reason. Roughly 95 percent of all abortions in Utah and nationwide are done using Therapeutic (Health) as a reason, In 1997 (the year of Hinckleys announcement) Utah had 3,054 of 3,140 total. (source; Utah Dept. Of Health, Bureau of Vital Records ph. 801–538–6301 free technical report)
Knowing that God has always forbidden such sacrifices of children, isn’t it obvious where Mormons got the inspiration allowing abortions and where Mormon parents are getting their inspiration to follow through and actually kill children?

You sound pretty sick to me. Have you seen your doctor lately?

zerinus

 

[Stephen168]

However the Mormons Holy Ghost through President Gordon B. Hinckley in 1998 publicly announced the current position of the LDS Church on Abortion; “While we denounce it, we make allowance in such circumstances as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have serious defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But such instances are rare, and there is only a negligible probability of their occurring. In these circumstances those who face the question are asked to consult with their local ecclesiastical leaders and to pray in great earnestness, receiving a confirmation through prayer before proceeding.” (Exact quote from The Ensign Nov.1998 pg.71 see also The First Presidencies General Handbook of Instructions pages 10-4 & 11-4)

Looks like another case of the Mormon Church teaching sin. Receiving sin from what they believe to be the Holy Spirit

 

[mormonpro]

You sound pretty sick to me. Have you seen your doctor lately?

zerinus

The truth about Mormonism is very sick… Have you ever seen the tortured and brutalized body parts of the Children your church has ripped apart? Sickening just doesn’t quite cut it. I would use words like Horrendous, vile, barbaric, satanic, to describe the Mormon practice of receiving revelation to kill helpless children and then following through on the sacrificial tables of abortionists who day in and day out fill these tables with the blood of the innocent.
You may be a hardened killer zerinus, but to us real Christians you are nothing more than modern child sacrificers.

 

[Irish_Kathy]

Well, you are in luck then! Because Joseph Smith did not write the Book of Mormon. Neither did he choose to make his own revelations part of the canon of scripture. That was the decision of the church!

So, we’re good.

As far as the Holy Ghost being involved with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, I must disagree with you. I cannot read a passage from either one without feeling the Holy Ghost witness that what is said is true. I am sorry, but if you have read their words and have not felt the power of Holy Ghost, you must not be familiar with the Holy Ghost.

I’ve also tried to read the Book of Mormon, with all due respect. But I also don’t “feel” the Holy Spirit’s presence when I do. On the other hand, when I read the Bible, I can truely feel His Presence on every page.

Also, there’s a book that is spreading at an alarming rate among Catholics. It’s the diary of a very humble Nun from the early 1940’s called Divine Mercy in My Soul. When I read this Diary, I feel the presence of the Holy Spirit in a very unique and special way. Also, you can’t deny the effect this particular Diary has had on the lives of Catholics and non-Catholic’s lives alike.

You can check it out for yourself:

saint-faustina.com/Diary/DMIMS1.shtml

You can even check out this online topical index if you want to check out a particular topic. But the thing that began it all for me, in particular, was the Chaplet of Divine Mercy which was begun as a result of the contents of this Diary. Saint Faustina is truely contnuing to change lives, even after her death, with the help of Pope John Paul THE GREAT!!!

www.catholic-forum.com/churches/cathteach/divinemercy1.htm

I dare any Mormon to compare her Diary with the Book of Mormon and tell us what you think

Kathy

 

[why_me]

I’ve also tried to read the Book of Mormon, with all due respect. But I also don’t “feel” the Holy Spirit’s presence when I do. On the other hand, when I read the Bible, I can truely feel His Presence on every page.

Also, there’s a book that is spreading at an alarming rate among Catholics. It’s the diary of a very humble Nun from the early 1940’s called Divine Mercy in My Soul. When I read this Diary, I feel the presence of the Holy Spirit in a very unique and special way. Also, you can’t deny the effect this particular Diary has had on the lives of Catholics and non-Catholic’s lives alike.

You can check it out for yourself:

saint-faustina.com/Diary/DMIMS1.shtml

You can even check out this online topical index if you want to check out a particular topic. But the thing that began it all for me, in particular, was the Chaplet of Divine Mercy which was begun as a result of the contents of this Diary. Saint Faustina is truely contnuing to change lives, even after her death, with the help of Pope John Paul THE GREAT!!!

www.catholic-forum.com/churches/cathteach/divinemercy1.htm

I dare any Mormon to compare her Diary with the Book of Mormon and tell us what you think

Kathy

With the book of mormon it is usually with intent. Did you have a sincere wish to find out that it were true? And how did you go about doing it? Now I have read the diary of saint faustina. But it was a diary not from the early forties. She died in 1938. Now the question about this diary is: did she actually see these visions of the child and adult Jesus or were they imaginings? But I did like the diary. It showed a very spiritual young nun/mystic who actually enjoyed life when not writing such serious things in her diary.

 

[why_me]

The truth about Mormonism is very sick… Have you ever seen the tortured and brutalized body parts of the Children your church has ripped apart? Sickening just doesn’t quite cut it. I would use words like Horrendous, vile, barbaric, satanic, to describe the Mormon practice of receiving revelation to kill helpless children and then following through on the sacrificial tables of abortionists who day in and day out fill these tables with the blood of the innocent.
You may be a hardened killer zerinus, but to us real Christians you are nothing more than modern child sacrificers.

Wow! What a wonderful christian post! Very nice indeed. Luckily, mormons do not write such things about the catholic church on the mormon apologetic board and get away with it.