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

[dianaiad]

I see. Your anti-Catholicism notwithstanding, I do encourage you to study these topics. Not just take what your church and your prejudices have given you.

Rebecca, even you can’t call me anti-Catholic. I have not misrepresented your beliefs. If I said something about them, and I was corrected, I took that correction with gratitude. I have not done anything that comes close to ‘anti’ behavior.

That said, the history of mankind is, unfortunately, rather clear. The Catholic church oversaw the Dark ages and was in large part responsible FOR them. Even as it kept much of the learning of the ancients in trust for those who came later, it saw to it that nobody but those trustees had access to that learning (and frankly, if it weren’t for the Muslims we wouldn’t have half the learning of the ancients we do now, because the Church had an unfortunate habit of burning stuff.) It is FACT that many of the Popes and leaders of the church ordered the murder of many, many people; some for ‘heresy,’ some for witchcraft, some because they weren’t Catholic in the first place, some because they were Jews, or Muslims, or…???

I wish that were not true, but it is.

Just as I wish that southern Utah Mormons had not attacked a wagon train full of farmers…but they did.

there’s no getting around it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca, even you can’t call me anti-Catholic. I have not misrepresented your beliefs. If I said something about them, and I was corrected, I took that correction with gratitude. I have not done anything that comes close to ‘anti’ behavior.

That said, the history of mankind is, unfortunately, rather clear. The Catholic church oversaw the Dark ages and was in large part responsible FOR them. Even as it kept much of the learning of the ancients in trust for those who came later, it saw to it that nobody but those trustees had access to that learning (and frankly, if it weren’t for the Muslims we wouldn’t have half the learning of the ancients we do now, because the Church had an unfortunate habit of burning stuff.) It is FACT that many of the Popes and leaders of the church ordered the murder of many, many people; some for ‘heresy,’ some for witchcraft, some because they weren’t Catholic in the first place, some because they were Jews, or Muslims, or…???

I wish that were not true, but it is.

Just as I wish that southern Utah Mormons had not attacked a wagon train full of farmers…but they did.

there’s no getting around it.

Diana, the “Dark Ages” was the time following the collapse of Rome. The term was coined by a person who lamented the loss of the Roman empire and all its culture.

During the Reformation, Protestants took this idea to blame the Catholic Church for this period. Which, propaganda you are still adhering to.

Modern scholars recognize all that happened during those times, and the term “Dark Ages”, is now seen as a description of dark periods in history. In Rome, the collapse caused centuries of history in some locals to be lost, because no one was writing about it. In Britain, it was the during the time the Saxons invaded.

No serious modern scholar places Christianity as a reason or cause for “dark ages”.

So yes, your prejudice against Catholicism is showing, and your American Protestant education. From the almighty wiki:

The public idea of the Middle Ages as a supposed “Dark Age” is also reflected in misconceptions regarding the study of nature during this period. The contemporary historians of science David C. Lindberg and Ronald Numbers discuss the widespread popular belief that the Middle Ages was a “time of ignorance and superstition,” the blame for which is to be laid on the Christian Church for allegedly “placing the word of religious authorities over personal experience and rational activity,” and emphasize that this view is essentially a caricature.[15] For instance, a claim that was first propagated in the 19th century[16] and is still very common in popular culture is the supposition that all people from the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat. According to Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, this claim was mistaken, as “there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth’s] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference.”[16][17] Ronald Numbers states that misconceptions such as “the Church prohibited autopsies and dissections during the Middle Ages,” “the rise of Christianity killed off ancient science,” and “the medieval Christian church suppressed the growth of natural philosophy,” are examples of widely popular myths that still pass as historical truth, though they are not supported by current historical research.[18]

As for the Reformation itself, the Church killed no one. Monarchies, who sought control, including controlling the religion their subjects adhered to, did the killing.

This is also a problem with anti-Catholicism, you fail to see a difference between the actions of government and the actions of a religious institution. This is clearly seen in Great Britain, where first Catholics were hunted down and killed, followed by a change in ruler, where Protestants were hunted down and killed. These were actions of a government, not a church.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

To answer the OP you would have to define trinity. They do not hold to what to the Trinity as set forth in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. They do believe that this world is ran by 3 Gods that are in complete agreement with one another in things. Were as Christians believe that God is eternal with no beginning or End and that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost have always been are one yet 3 separate person of the same God. They Believe that God was once a man on some other world and became an immortal god. He and his goddess wife had and still have spirit children one of which was Jesus whom now has is progressing to full godhood. of his own.

 

[cothrige]

Yes we’ve established that we Latter-day Saints believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate beings. This is not contradictory to II Nephi, because we believe they are one God, united in purpose, intent, will, and love.

If I and my wife are united in purpose, intent, will and love regarding our children, and I would say that we are btw, then would we be one parent? It seems a bit of a stretch to claim that three separate entities are one God merely because they share the same intent and purpose.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Evidence for the trinity is obvious in the Gospel of John which opens by declaring “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” The rest of John Chapter 1 makes it clear that “the Word” refers to Jesus Christ. Thus John introduces a seemingly impossible contradiction, that Jesus both “was with God” and “was God” at the same time, and that was true from the beginning of creation. John also portrays Jesus Christ as the creator of the Universe, such that “without him nothing was made that has been made”.

In 325, the Council of Nicaea adopted a term for the relationship between the Son and the Father that from then on was seen as the hallmark of orthodoxy; it declared that the Son is “of the same substance” as the Father. This was further developed into the formula “three persons, one substance”. The answer to the question “What is God?” indicates the one-ness of the divine nature, while the answer to the question “Who is God?” indicates the three-ness of “Father, Son and Holy Spirit”.

The church fathers were rejecting some Greek philosophy, such as teaching that Christ is inferior to the Father, or even that he was merely human, or, on the other hand, teaching that Christ was an illusion, or that he was identical to God the Father.

St. Augustine of Hippo contributed much to the development of the doctrine of the Trinity as it is known today The imprint of Augustinianism is found, for example, in the Athanasian Creed. According to the Athanasian Creed, each of these three divine persons is said to be eternal, each almighty, none greater or less than another, each God, and yet together being but one God, So are we forbidden by the Catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

Athanasian Creed
Whoever wants to be saved should above all cling to the catholic faith.

Whoever does not guard it whole and inviolable will doubtless perish eternally.

Now this is the catholic faith: We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being.

For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Spirit is still another.

But the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, equal in glory, coeternal in majesty.

What the Father is, the Son is, and so is the Holy Spirit.

Uncreated is the Father; uncreated is the Son; uncreated is the Spirit.

The Father is infinite; the Son is infinite; the Holy Spirit is infinite.

Eternal is the Father; eternal is the Son; eternal is the Spirit: And yet there are not three eternal beings, but one who is eternal; as there are not three uncreated and unlimited beings, but one who is uncreated and unlimited.

Almighty is the Father; almighty is the Son; almighty is the Spirit: And yet there are not three almighty beings, but one who is almighty.

Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God.

Thus the Father is Lord; the Son is Lord; the Holy Spirit is Lord: And yet there are not three lords, but one Lord.

As Christian truth compels us to acknowledge each distinct person as God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords.

The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten; the Son was neither made nor created, but was alone begotten of the Father; the Spirit was neither made nor created, but is proceeding from the Father and the Son.

Thus there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three spirits.

And in this Trinity, no one is before or after, greater or less than the other; but all three persons are in themselves, coeternal and coequal; and so we must worship the Trinity in unity and the one God in three persons.

Whoever wants to be saved should think thus about the Trinity.

It is necessary for eternal salvation that one also faithfully believe that our Lord Jesus Christ became flesh.

For this is the true faith that we believe and confess: That our Lord Jesus Christ, God’s Son, is both God and man.

He is God, begotten before all worlds from the being of the Father, and he is man, born in the world from the being of his mother – existing fully as God, and fully as man with a rational soul and a human body; equal to the Father in divinity, subordinate to the Father in humanity.

Although he is God and man, he is not divided, but is one Christ.

He is united because God has taken humanity into himself; he does not transform deity into humanity.

He is completely one in the unity of his person, without confusing his natures.

For as the rational soul and body are one person, so the one Christ is God and man.

He suffered death for our salvation. He descended into hell and rose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

At his coming all people shall rise bodily to give an account of their own deeds.

Those who have done good will enter eternal life, those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.

This is the catholic faith.

One cannot be saved without believing this firmly and faithfully.

 

[PaulDupre]

So I think that the Gospel Principles manual should be modified slightly to either take out the sentence you highlighted, or to explain better what Joseph Smith said.

Parker,
I appreciate your thoughful and thorough answer, but I wasn’t asking what you think. I want to know what the LDS church is teaching these days (which has changed sharply from what they taught a mere 20 years ago).

If you think that the Gospel Principles manual was not thoroughly reviewed and approved by the First Presidency, then I’m afraid you are terribly naive. Everything in there is what the LDS Church leadership currently wants to be taught throughout the church.

By the way, I also taught Gospel Essentials for three years.

 

[sweetnay]

Scriptorian
Seriously. …well I guess you can claim whatever you want (Jsmith certainly did).

Personally I believe in Peter Pan and I keep his shadow in my drawer. Of course–you can’t really verify that, BUT, if you pray about it, sincerely and with an open heart, soon you will be able to testify to this truth!

Rest assured if there was any substantial physical evidence from the BOM, Monson would be trottin’ in out as we speak, the Smithsonian Institute would have to amend their statement etc etc

And what do you say to the Jehovah Witnesses who have a “testimony” regarding their beliefs? Or Hindus? Or Muslims? Perhaps a “testimony”, in and of itself, is not a subjective reason enough to believe --well–anything! People have “testimonies” about Amway! But see, that’s ALL you have. All you have are “feelings” because you’ve nothing else to go on. You belong to the number one feel-good-social club in the world! It is buffered w many things that ARE good, ie-good will and family oriented activities etc, but that doesn’t mean it’s TRUE. The core is wrong. Joseph lied.

Science, reason and logic support (don’t prove) the Bible and Christianity. They do not support the BOM and won’t because it’s fiction. Period.

 

[dianaiad]

Diana, the “Dark Ages” was the time following the collapse of Rome. The term was coined by a person who lamented the loss of the Roman empire and all its culture.

During the Reformation, Protestants took this idea to blame the Catholic Church for this period. Which, propaganda you are still adhering to.

Modern scholars recognize all that happened during those times, and the term “Dark Ages”, is now seen as a description of dark periods in history. In Rome, the collapse caused centuries of history in some locals to be lost, because no one was writing about it. In Britain, it was the during the time the Saxons invaded.

No serious modern scholar places Christianity as a reason or cause for “dark ages”.

So yes, your prejudice against Catholicism is showing, and your American Protestant education. From the almighty wiki:

As for the Reformation itself, the Church killed no one. Monarchies, who sought control, including controlling the religion their subjects adhered to, did the killing.

This is also a problem with anti-Catholicism, you fail to see a difference between the actions of government and the actions of a religious institution. This is clearly seen in Great Britain, where first Catholics were hunted down and killed, followed by a change in ruler, where Protestants were hunted down and killed. These were actions of a government, not a church.

Pope Innocent III

 

[ojohn]

no is the answer athey belive in three seperate beings

 

[RebeccaJ]

Pope Innocent III

What about him?

 

[ojohn]

so what does the first verse in gospel of John say and read down through v 14 someone explain to me this if it doesnt mean what it says and explain to me Luke 1 v 35 now is Jesus son of Holy Ghost or son of GOD ? THE WORD MADE FLESH ? YES -NO

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,
I appreciate your thoughful and thorough answer, but I wasn’t asking what you think. I want to know what the LDS church is teaching these days (which has changed sharply from what they taught a mere 20 years ago).

If you think that the Gospel Principles manual was not thoroughly reviewed and approved by the First Presidency, then I’m afraid you are terribly naive. Everything in there is what the LDS Church leadership currently wants to be taught throughout the church.

By the way, I also taught Gospel Essentials for three years.

Paul,
I think it is a significant enough issue you have pointed out, that it warrants finding out a definitive answer, so this week I’ll write a short letter to the secretary of the Quorum of the Twelve (a personal friend from my youth), and get back to you on what his or whomever he forwards the question to, answer is.

 

[ParkerD]

so what does the first verse in gospel of John say and read down through v 14 someone explain to me this if it doesnt mean what it says and explain to me Luke 1 v 35 now is Jesus son of Holy Ghost or son of GOD ? THE WORD MADE FLESH ? YES -NO

OJohn,
You would probably want to read back through this entire thread. Briefly, when Luke 1:32 says “He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:”
it means what it says.

“The Son of the Highest” means the Son of God the Father.
“The throne of his father David” means that David was his maternal ancestor, literally.

 

[dianaiad]

What about him?

Look him up.

Also, try remembering that for many centuries, the church WAS the government in many ways, and even when the kings/rulers were powerful, they all held their crowns only by the will and permission of the church; excommunicated kings had problems; all their subjects were released of any obligation to follow them, for instance.

Please remember the difference between the INSTITUTION and the basic beliefs. It is a difference that Catholics remember all too quickly when people point to such things as, oh…the Albegensian massacre, the crusades and the witch hunts.

The problem is, whenever I have talked about the crusades elsewhere, I have defended the church more than accused it; I came down on the side of politics and kings, too…and most of the crusades WERE a matter of politics and kings, who wanted to adjust power and position to suit them.

However, not all the Crusades were thus…and the church as an institution is not guiltless.

Again, look up the history of Pope Innocent III; given the way he bestowed crowns…and massacres…he is only one of the Popes to which I allude.

I would say that most of the men who held the Papacy were good men doing the best they could. I hope. However…

 

[RebeccaJ]

Look him up.

Also, try remembering that for many centuries, the church WAS the government in many ways, and even when the kings/rulers were powerful, they all held their crowns only by the will and permission of the church; excommunicated kings had problems; all their subjects were released of any obligation to follow them, for instance.

Please remember the difference between the INSTITUTION and the basic beliefs. It is a difference that Catholics remember all too quickly when people point to such things as, oh…the Albegensian massacre, the crusades and the witch hunts.

The problem is, whenever I have talked about the crusades elsewhere, I have defended the church more than accused it; I came down on the side of politics and kings, too…and most of the crusades WERE a matter of politics and kings, who wanted to adjust power and position to suit them.

However, not all the Crusades were thus…and the church as an institution is not guiltless.

Again, look up the history of Pope Innocent III; given the way he bestowed crowns…and massacres…he is only one of the Popes to which I allude.

I would say that most of the men who held the Papacy were good men doing the best they could. I hope. However…

I know about Pope Innocent III. When you send representatives of diplomacy and they are received with murder, you have to make a choice. Attempt to continue diplomacy, or take it to the level of war.

You seem to believe Pope Innocent III was sitting there contemplating all the ways he could massacre. If you actually read history, you will see that his decision to go to war against the Albgiensians was not an easy decision.

Was it the right decision? It is far more complicated than the black and white you are trying to make it into. In an era when Church and state were the same thing, a faction arising that opposes the Church, is also in opposition to the state. The French govt. eagerly wiped out the Albigensians, as they were a political threat. Pope Innocent III ordered it because he viewed heresy as a threat to the Church.

This most certainly was not a time of religious freedom. As a person who sees religious freedom as a right of all humans, certainly I see this as unacceptable. In the era in which it took place, enforcing religious truth was considered righteous and nothing less than fighting for the Will of God.

God will judge what was in the heart of Pope Innocent III, and everyone. From what I have read, I believe his heart was where he thought it should be, in tune to God’s Will. In our judgment, the acts are barbaric. The battle for truth and righteousness was seen as just that, a real war. It was not a metaphor for something less.

I don’t know Diana, there are people who believe we are headed there again. That the battle for truth is headed towards a real battle. LDS teach this, as very integral to your belief of the end times. What do you think us peace loving hippies are going to do in such a circumstance?

All that being said, there have been a few really bad Popes. I don’t believe Innocent III had the black heart of say John XII.

 

[PaulDupre]

Paul,
I think it is a significant enough issue you have pointed out, that it warrants finding out a definitive answer, so this week I’ll write a short letter to the secretary of the Quorum of the Twelve (a personal friend from my youth), and get back to you on what his or whomever he forwards the question to, answer is.

Good idea. I appreciate it.

 

[Bill_Pick]

I know about Pope Innocent III. When you send representatives of diplomacy and they are received with murder, you have to make a choice. Attempt to continue diplomacy, or take it to the level of war.

You seem to believe Pope Innocent III was sitting there contemplating all the ways he could massacre. If you actually read history, you will see that his decision to go to war against the Albgiensians was not an easy decision.

Was it the right decision? It is far more complicated than the black and white you are trying to make it into. In an era when Church and state were the same thing, a faction arising that opposes the Church, is also in opposition to the state. The French govt. eagerly wiped out the Albigensians, as they were a political threat. Pope Innocent III ordered it because he viewed heresy as a threat to the Church.

This most certainly was not a time of religious freedom. As a person who sees religious freedom as a right of all humans, certainly I see this as unacceptable. In the era in which it took place, enforcing religious truth was considered righteous and nothing less than fighting for the Will of God.

God will judge what was in the heart of Pope Innocent III, and everyone. From what I have read, I believe his heart was where he thought it should be, in tune to God’s Will. In our judgment, the acts are barbaric. The battle for truth and righteousness was seen as just that, a real war. It was not a metaphor for something less.

I don’t know Diana, there are people who believe we are headed there again. That the battle for truth is headed towards a real battle. LDS teach this, as very integral to your belief of the end times. What do you think us peace loving hippies are going to do in such a circumstance?

All that being said, there have been a few really bad Popes. I don’t believe Innocent III had the black heart of say John XII.

Was this the question===OK, I Am Confused. Do Mormons Believe In The Trinity? answer No they do not believe as Christians believe in the Trinity=== They deny the Christian belief in the Trinity. For them there are three distinct persons, each a separate God, as their founder Joseph Smith taught.

“I will preach on the plurality of gods. Many men say there is one God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and they are truly one God. I say this is a strange God…three in one and one in three…”
(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith 1974 p. 372)
. Mormon doctrine again reveals how contradictory it is, for Smith’s teaching on the plurality of gods is not contained in the Book of Mormon. In fact the Book upholds the Christian belief in the Trinity.

“And now behold this is the doctrine of Christ and the only one true doctrine of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost WHICH IS ONE GOD without end.”
(II Nephi 31:21)
. Now either the Book of Mormon is in error, a book Smith claimed to be the most correct of any on this earth because it was translated by the direct power of God and contained the fullness of the everlasting gospel, or the so-called Prophet of God is in error. Such is the Mormon dilemma.

 

[Stephen168]

Rebecca, even you can’t call me anti-Catholic.

She did not call you anti-Catholic. She called Scriptorian anti-Catholic. But it did give you a chance to jump in with your protestant America elementary school version of Christian History. Which would make one wonder about your motives, for doing it.

Mormons do not believe in the trinity which is why they are not Christian

 

[dianaiad]

She did not call you anti-Catholic. She called Scriptorian anti-Catholic. But it did give you a chance to jump in with your protestant America elementary school version of Christian History. Which would make one wonder about your motives, for doing it.

Mormons do not believe in the trinity which is why they are not Christian

I do not accept your definition of “Christian” as 'someone who believes in the Trinity as I believe in it."

(shrug)

Nor can I imagine why on earth you would expect me to do so.

 

[Stephen168]

I do not accept your definition of “Christian” as 'someone who believes in the Trinity as I believe in it."

(shrug)

Nor can I imagine why on earth you would expect me to do so.

It is interesting that in the last 30 years the Mormon Church has decided they want to be thought of Trinitarian. I think it is a sign that they is moving toward Christianity. The Adventists started off on the wrong foot but quickly recovered. Maybe now it is the Mormons turn.