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

[cothrige]

I am really concerned about all of you Catholics on this thread. Why do you let Mormonpro dictate the terms of our discussion. I told you that he is a con-artist. Don’t let him manipulate you. For nearly 50 posts or more you have carried on about how Mormons are murderers. You have sworn up and down that we believe in abortions. We do not.

I have to assume that, since you quoted my comments you are replying to me in the above. However, I would ask you to please look more closely at what I said, and what I responded to. I did not respond to anything said by mormonpro, and haven’t even made any comments about what Mormons may or may not believe about this topic. I certainly have not carried on any 50 post argument that Mormons are murderers. My goodness, I have not suggested such even once! Why would you say this about me? Have you confused me with somebody else?

What I responded to was a direct comment from dianaiad critical of the Catholic view of abortion. What she said was, to my view, quite erroneous and I said so. It was argued that the Church was wrong, or perhaps just hypocritical, in allowing life saving techniques to be used without intentionally carrying out an abortion. That is simply an untenable position. Removing a foetus can benefit a pregnant woman in distress, but intentionally killing the baby either before or after doing so is simply irrelevant. Abortions do not save lives. They end them.

 

[Scriptorian]

I have to assume that, since you quoted my comments you are replying to me in the above. However, I would ask you to please look more closely at what I said, and what I responded to. I did not respond to anything said by mormonpro, and haven’t even made any comments about what Mormons may or may not believe about this topic. I certainly have not carried on any 50 post argument that Mormons are murderers. My goodness, I have not suggested such even once! Why would you say this about me? Have you confused me with somebody else?

What I responded to was a direct comment from dianaiad critical of the Catholic view of abortion. What she said was, to my view, quite erroneous and I said so. It was argued that the Church was wrong, or perhaps just hypocritical, in allowing life saving techniques to be used without intentionally carrying out an abortion. That is simply an untenable position. Removing a foetus can benefit a pregnant woman in distress, but intentionally killing the baby either before or after doing so is simply irrelevant. Abortions do not save lives. They end them.

I was not responding to you personally, Cothrige. I apologize if it seemed that way. I just started with the last thread I saw (or bothered to read), and replied there. They reply was meant for some of the other posters that genuinely feel they are doing the world a service by exposing Mormons as child killers.

It is really a losing situation no matter how we respond, though. Don’t you see? If we say we do not believe in abortion for any reason (like Diana did) we are told that we disagree with our church (our church never says one must have an abortion… ever.)

If we say that we believe that an abortion is a personal choice when a mother is a victim of rape, incest, or a life threatening situation (as almost all of the Mormons on here have said), we are told that we compromise the commandment of God to not kill. And in the most cruel perversion of this law, we allow the killing of babies. This is a distortion that will do no good to explain in the midst of insults, accusations, false witnesses, and lies.

If we say that we don’t want to talk about it because our posts can’t cut through the name calling (as many of us have said), we are told that our position must be indefensible because we don’t want to explain it (nice try Stephen).

If we say that in every situation our church urges a woman to choose adoption rather than abortion, we are ignored in favor of the more shocking and appalling idea that we are staunch advocates of all abortions. Another lie and just a disgusting attempt to discredit anything we say.

If we point out these unfair and manipulative tactics, we are called “armchair” psychologists and prone to personal attacks.

You’ll notice that the thread has nearly died. Even the liars don’t appreciate an environment full of lies and distortions. It is draining on the spirit and only the most spiritually dead want it to continue.

Can we please move on?

 

[Stephen168]

I was not responding to you personally, Cothrige. I apologize if it seemed that way. I just started with the last thread I saw (or bothered to read), and replied there. They reply was meant for some of the other posters that genuinely feel they are doing the world a service by exposing Mormons as child killers.

It is really a losing situation no matter how we respond, though. Don’t you see? If we say we do not believe in abortion for any reason (like Diana did) we are told that we disagree with our church (our church never says one must have an abortion… ever.)

If we say that we believe that an abortion is a personal choice when a mother is a victim of rape, incest, or a life threatening situation (as almost all of the Mormons on here have said), we are told that we compromise the commandment of God to not kill. And in the most cruel perversion of this law, we allow the killing of babies. This is a distortion that will do no good to explain in the midst of insults, accusations, false witnesses, and lies.

If we say that we don’t want to talk about it because our posts can’t cut through the name calling (as many of us have said), we are told that our position must be indefensible because we don’t want to explain it (nice try Stephen).

If we say that in every situation our church urges a woman to choose adoption rather than abortion, we are ignored in favor of the more shocking and appalling idea that we are staunch advocates of all abortions. Another lie and just a disgusting attempt to discredit anything we say.

If we point out these unfair and manipulative tactics, we are called “armchair” psychologists and prone to personal attacks.

You’ll notice that the thread has nearly died. Even the liars don’t appreciate an environment full of lies and distortions. It is draining on the spirit and only the most spiritually dead want it to continue.

Can we please move on?

You can not win because you can not answer the question: Why would it be reasonable to murder babies conceived by rape and not any other baby? There is nothing unfair or manipulative about it. I once had a pro-abortion person ask me this question because they assumed my position was the same as the Mormon Church. I was sure glad I was Catholic, so I could give a rational answer.

 

[cothrige]

I was not responding to you personally, Cothrige. I apologize if it seemed that way. I just started with the last thread I saw (or bothered to read), and replied there. They reply was meant for some of the other posters that genuinely feel they are doing the world a service by exposing Mormons as child killers.

Okay. It just seemed you were saying that I had taken this or that position, and I wanted to make clear that responded to one very specific statement about the Catholic positioin. I felt comfortable responding to that one. I never actually intended to qualify or judge the Mormon position, if for no other reason than I don’t know a thing about it.

You’ll notice that the thread has nearly died. Even the liars don’t appreciate an environment full of lies and distortions. It is draining on the spirit and only the most spiritually dead want it to continue.

Can we please move on?

Well, I won’t touch on anyone’s spiritual health, but I also don’t really have anything to add to the abortion conversation. Beyond the erroneous criticism of the Catholic position I had no horse in this race. The LDS teaching on abortion may be weak, I don’t really know. I never thought that Mormons were pro-abortion. But, in any case, it isn’t something I know anything about, and since it seems to have become something of a flame-war, and my fire-proof underwear are at the cleaners, I thought I would let y’all settle it.

 

[Sunstone]

This is the orthodox position in Mormonism, which is, of course, a heretical position most everywhere else:

“Our first and foremost article of faith in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” We believe these three divine persons constituting a single Godhead are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. We believe Them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption. I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance” (Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Ensign, Nov. 2007, p. 40).

 

[Catholic20064]

This is the orthodox position in Mormonism, which is, of course, a heretical position most everywhere else:

“Our first and foremost article of faith in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” We believe these three divine persons constituting a single Godhead are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. We believe Them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption. I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance” (Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Ensign, Nov. 2007, p. 40).

I’m not sure a Catholic would say they were “combined” in one substance. Somehow that seems an incorrect way to express what we believe.

 

[Finrock]

I’m not sure a Catholic would say they were “combined” in one substance. Somehow that seems an incorrect way to express what we believe.

Good Morning Catholic20064! It is a beautiful day here in Michigan. I hope your day is going great as well.

I wanted to ask, if you don’t mind, to please clarify in what way that is an incorrect way to express what Catholics believe? Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding on my motivations, please know that I am not asking this so that I can contend with you. I simply am curious and want to understand this better.

Thank you in advance, if you do take the time to respond to my post.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Catholic20064]

Good Morning Catholic20064! It is a beautiful day here in Michigan. I hope your day is going great as well.

I wanted to ask, if you don’t mind, to please clarify in what way that is an incorrect way to express what Catholics believe? Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding on my motivations, please know that I am not asking this so that I can contend with you. I simply am curious and want to understand this better.

Thank you in advance, if you do take the time to respond to my post.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Actually, my response was more a question than a comment. “Combined” would make sense if we were talking about a physical reality, but doesn’t seem proper when we are discussing a spiritual reality. “Combined” just doesn’t strike me as the proper term to use when speaking of the Trinity.

 

[Finrock]

Actually, my response was more a question than a comment. “Combined” would make sense if we were talking about a physical reality, but doesn’t seem proper when we are discussing a spiritual reality. “Combined” just doesn’t strike me as the proper term to use when speaking of the Trinity.

Thank you Catholic20064 for responding to my question.

I think I understand what you are saying. I believe you are saying that because God is strictly a spirit, there is nothing that is technically “combined” as things are combined in physical reality. Is that correct?

Instead of using the word “combined” in the phrase, “three persons combined in one substance”, what word would you use that better fits in with the Catholic understanding of the Trinity?

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Sunstone]

I’m not sure a Catholic would say they were “combined” in one substance. Somehow that seems an incorrect way to express what we believe.

No doubt. The speaker’s audience was mostly Mormon, though, and most of them wouldn’t understand a discussion of homoousious and homoiousious.

If I understand correctly, Catholics with an accurate understanding of their own doctrine would object to the substance of God being divided. Perhaps I am mistaken

 

[Religio71]

No doubt. The speaker’s audience was mostly Mormon, though, and most of them wouldn’t understand a discussion of homoousious and homoiousious.

If I understand correctly, Catholics with an accurate understanding of their own doctrine would object to the substance of God being divided. Perhaps I am mistaken

Yes, the one substance is undivided. Each person of the Trinity is fully God, fully that one Divine substance. They aren’t “combined in one substance”, they are that one substance. I think the Catechism is clear on what Catholics believe on the Trinity:

"253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the “consubstantial Trinity”.83 The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God."84 In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."85

254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."86 “Father”, “Son”, “Holy Spirit” are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."88 The divine Unity is Triune.

255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance."89 Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship."90 "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son."91 "

 

[Sunstone]

Yes, the one substance is undivided. Each person of the Trinity is fully God, fully that one Divine substance. They aren’t “combined in one substance”, they are that one substance. I think the Catechism is clear on what Catholics believe on the Trinity:

"253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the “consubstantial Trinity”.83 The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God."84 In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."85

254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."86 “Father”, “Son”, “Holy Spirit” are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."88 The divine Unity is Triune.

255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance."89 Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship."90 "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son."91 "

Thank you. I can now see that the assertion of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being “combined” presupposes a Mormon position of their being divided.

 

[Scriptorian]

Yes, the one substance is undivided. Each person of the Trinity is fully God, fully that one Divine substance. They aren’t “combined in one substance”, they are that one substance. I think the Catechism is clear on what Catholics believe on the Trinity:

"253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the “consubstantial Trinity”.83 The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God."84 In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."85

254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."86 “Father”, “Son”, “Holy Spirit” are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."88 The divine Unity is Triune.

255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance."89 Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship."90 "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son."91 "

How is this even remotely clear?

If you can explain to me in plain English what that means without resorting to the “it’s impossible to know” argument, you deserve a cookie. I have never been able to make sense of it, and I am a pretty smart cookie myself (IMHO).

Care to try?

 

[Louie1983]

Scriptorian, maybe this example can help.

H20 can be an example of this.

Now we know that H20 can be 3 different substances but infact have the exact same essence. How? Water,steam and ice appear to be 3 different substances altogether however they all carry 2 part hydrogen and 1 part oxygen. In other words their appearance are different but they have the same structure!

This is the same with the trinity, 1 god = 3 divine persons or h20 = 3 different substances.

Does that help?

 

[Religio71]

How is this even remotely clear?

If you can explain to me in plain English what that means without resorting to the “it’s impossible to know” argument, you deserve a cookie. I have never been able to make sense of it, and I am a pretty smart cookie myself (IMHO).

Care to try?

Scriptorian, I don’t get how LDS come to the conclusion that we believe that God is completely incomprehensible. We believe that God is Triune, three distinct persons, of one substance, one God. Yes, we cannot fully understand the nature of God, because He is beyond anything that we know. However, we do know that He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. How is the Catechism entry confusing to you? How is God “eternally incomprehensible”, according to Jeff Lindsay, when He has been revealed in Jesus Christ, fully God and fully man (and not half God and half man, according to LDS Sunday School teachings).

We do not believe in three Gods. Do you? The one God is three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There is only one Divine nature. That one nature (or Divine substance) is not divided amongst the three Persons. Each Person of the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is fully Divine, fully God. Each Person literally is what the others are. The eternal nature of each Person is the same.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are completely separate from each other. Catholics do not believe in modalism. However, as much as they are distinct Persons, they all have the same eternal, divine, nature, as they are consubstantial, co-eternal.

That is basically what Catholics believe. It is in contrast to Mormons that believe that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones. That Jesus Christ was the first born of many spirit children of the Father. That God the Father lived on an earth like Jesus did, and progressed. The first prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints taught that God the Father lived on another earth, and was not always God. Catholics believe that God has always existed, and never had a beginning, and does not have an end. He was always divine, and did not live on an earth.

 

[Religio71]

and you deserve a cookie to show that scripture says that God was not always God, even though Joseph Smith, a “prophet of God”, the person that God apparently restored the original Church of Jesus Christ, taught this. Let us not forget that Brigham Young, another prophet of God, taught that Adam was actually God.

 

[Religio71]

Scriptorian, maybe this example can help.

H20 can be an example of this.

Now we know that H20 can be 3 different substances but infact have the exact same essence. How? Water,steam and ice appear to be 3 different substances altogether however they all carry 2 part hydrogen and 1 part oxygen. In other words their appearance are different but they have the same structure!

This is the same with the trinity, 1 god = 3 divine persons or h20 = 3 different substances.

Does that help?

this is slightly incorrect (i studied biochemistry this semester ). H2O is one substance that has three “persons” or forms: water, ice, and vapor/steam. Each is completely distinct, yet they all are fully the same substance (at the molecular level, two hydrogen atoms hydrogen bonded to one oxygen atom). So each phase of water is the same substance, always, yet they are distinct. This analogy works if we imagine the water, ice, and vapor existing separately as the one water (at the same time), as separate phases, and not just one water molecule changing between each phase when it needs to (aka modalism).

 

[Religio71]

also, to add to the confusion that the LDS position on God has (even though they pretend that it is more logical than the traditional, Triune, God), LDS will sometimes say that yes, Jesus Christ is God, as he is part of the Godhead. Then other times they will say that the Father is the one God, as he is over Jesus Christ. This is evident in their emphasis on God the Father and his son, Jesus Christ. So which is it, is God the Father the supreme God, or is Jesus Christ equal to the Father? If he isn’t, how can we say that Jesus is God? Can we worship Jesus if he is God? LDS do not worship Jesus Christ, or pray to Him, even though apparently he is God according to them. They only pray to and worship the Father.

 

[Holly3278]

They believe in a version of the Trinity that is totally unorthodox. Basically they believe in three gods instead of one God.

 

[ParkerD]

also, to add to the confusion that the LDS position on God has (even though they pretend that it is more logical than the traditional, Triune, God), LDS will sometimes say that yes, Jesus Christ is God, as he is part of the Godhead. Then other times they will say that the Father is the one God, as he is over Jesus Christ. This is evident in their emphasis on God the Father and his son, Jesus Christ. So which is it, is God the Father the supreme God, or is Jesus Christ equal to the Father? If he isn’t, how can we say that Jesus is God? Can we worship Jesus if he is God? LDS do not worship Jesus Christ, or pray to Him, even though apparently he is God according to them. They only pray to and worship the Father.

Religio71,
Perhaps you didn’t feel the need to worship Jesus Christ when you were LDS, but I feel very much inclined to worship Jesus as the Savior, the Redeemer of my soul, the Good Shepherd, the Light of the world, the Father of my spiritual rebirth, and the Liberator of the captives who are bound. If I were in His presence, I would fall down and kiss His feet with many tears of gratitude and love, and pray to Him just as though He were Heavenly Father, yet knowing He is the Son of God, our Perfect Advocate with the Father. I know He lives as well as I know anything I can touch and feel in this world. I worship Him with all of my heart and soul.