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

[NewSeeker]

See my post above. You will need to know something about him…if you will engage in apologetics. Also, have a look at the fairwiki on fairlds.org

If Strang’s witnesses could lie or be duped, so too could Joseph Smith’s. Got anything else?

NS

 

[zerinus]

Yes, but God does not lie, and he does not mislead. And we can also ask questions and use reason. Just because something is posited as having happened one cannot simply say that God is mysterious and so you cannot question whether the suggestion is true. And one way we can use reason when it comes to new theories about God or his Church is to compare what is said to what we know God has revealed or done in the past. This is an entirely new idea, that God has actually destroyed or covered up the archaeological record of his people, and so it is entirely right to ask if we have reason to accept this. Has God done this before? Has he ever revealed to his Church that such is what he has done? No, on both counts. I am asking the person who is claiming that God has manipulated the historical record to explain the discrepency, and I don’t think the fact that God’s ways are a mystery to us is an acceptable answer.

The trouble with the kinds of questions that you are asking is that they have been asked a zillion times before, and answered a zillion times, at least by myself if by no one else. That is why I created that Blog, to save me the trouble of having to answers them again and again. That also explains why I am reluctant to engage in this kind of debate, because I would be bored out of my pants if I did! You can read my Blog post on archeology here, and on DNA here. If you are not interested in reading those, that is okay; I am not interested in debating it with you either!

zerinus

 

[dianaiad]

Then you do not believe what Jesus taught.

Define what he taught in this specific area, Rebecca.

 

[ParkerD]

Yes, but God does not lie, and he does not mislead. And we can also ask questions and use reason. Just because something is posited as having happened one cannot simply say that God is mysterious and so you cannot question whether the suggestion is true. And one way we can use reason when it comes to new theories about God or his Church is to compare what is said to what we know God has revealed or done in the past. This is an entirely new idea, that God has actually destroyed or covered up the archaeological record of his people, and so it is entirely right to ask if we have reason to accept this. Has God done this before? Has he ever revealed to his Church that such is what he has done? No, on both counts. I am asking the person who is claiming that God has manipulated the historical record to explain the discrepency, and I don’t think the fact that God’s ways are a mystery to us is an acceptable answer.

Cothrige,
I wasn’t saying God is mysterious. I honestly don’t think He is.
Do you know where all of the twelve tribes of Israel are? According to the Bible, they are somewhere on earth–that is, a remnant of them are. (If you do know where they are, I know a lot of people who would absolutely love to have that information.)

If not, then why not based on your question “has God done this before?” I think it is quite evident from the Bible that He has “done this before.” It is repeatedly written that Judah and Israel will be scattered. There are passages describing some of that scattering. But do we have the records as to where they went, and where they are? Do they know it when they are being “gathered again” in these latter days? (I am not talking only about the Jews, which is just one tribe.)

Do we have all of the “books” and prophetic writings within the Bible that are mentioned in the Bible? (I assume you are aware that we don’t.) So where are those writings?

Again, God is purposeful and absolutely will be victorious. Re-read Revelation 12, and think about the woman who went into hiding “into the wilderness” when the dragon/serpent was persecuting her. (Her child, by the way, was “to rule all nations with a rod of iron,” and was “caught up to God”).

I suppose that is enough said. Have a good day.

 

[dianaiad]

Earlier, you said that you believed that God is three persons united in purpose, but not in being. You rejected the Trinity. So, how do you know? Who told you? How can you be sure they are right? And you say that you have a Prophet. How do you know that? How do you know which person is the Prophet? And how do you know that what he is even a real prophet?

Ah, but that’s the rub, isn’t it?

We ‘know’ these things because we follow the advice of the scriptures; we examine all things (and people) that claim to be of Him, study those things, think about them…then pray for guidance. Through the guidance of the Holy Ghost we can know the truth of all things.

I believe that this method works for everybody…and is the only way any of us can understand religious truth. You simply can NOT come to an understanding of religious truth without asking God—and expecting (and accepting) the answer.

Problems arise, not in the idea that the Holy Ghost might confirm falsity, but that in confirming one truth, the listener attaches a lot of false baggage on top of it. Or…that the question asked wasn’t what the questioner thought it was.

So when a Catholic tells me that the spirit tells him or her that the spirit has witnessed truth, I believe that. Catholics have a great deal of the truth; there’s no reason that they would not receive confirmation of that.

So, too, do Protestants have a great deal of the truth. For that matter, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans and spiritist pagans have truth—to a greater or lesser degree. Of course those who pray would get a witness of that truth.

but as I mentioned, the problem isn’t the truth. It’s all the not-quite-as-true stuff people want to hang onto that truth. YOU guys think we are the ones hanging all the extras on, and we think you are.

 

[NewSeeker]

Ah, but that’s the rub, isn’t it?

We ‘know’ these things because we follow the advice of the scriptures; we examine all things (and people) that claim to be of Him, study those things, think about them…then pray for guidance. Through the guidance of the Holy Ghost we can know the truth of all things.

I believe that this method works for everybody…and is the only way any of us can understand religious truth. You simply can NOT come to an understanding of religious truth without asking God—and expecting (and accepting) the answer.

Problems arise, not in the idea that the Holy Ghost might confirm falsity, but that in confirming one truth, the listener attaches a lot of false baggage on top of it. Or…that the question asked wasn’t what the questioner thought it was.

You imply that the guidance of the Holy Ghost is the final arbiter of truth. What do you do when two people with contradictory views claim the Spirit’s guidance? How do you convince that person that s/he is wrong? Do you say “the Spirit can’t have guided you to that view, since the Spirit guided me and I know I’m right” or do you point the other person to some authority? If you do the former, then all of these Catholic-Mormon debates are a waste of time since the “I felt the Spirit and you didn’t” arguments are completely useless. If it’s the latter, then the Spirit isn’t the final arbiter; the third thing between you and the other person, the authority you point to, is the final arbiter. But then the other person can say to you “how do you know that authority is correct?” and you’ll say “because the Spirit led me to that view”. And so, everything comes full circle and we have resolved absolutely nothing. The Spirit and your own personal experience can’t be the final arbiter. God wouldn’t leave us trapped in a vicious cycle of circular reasoning - which is where the Holy Ghost-based approach to finding truth inevitably leads us. It makes sense that he would leave us an authority to trust, but determining who that authority is can’t be determined solely by prayer and the witness of the spirit (for the reasons just mentioned). We must also examine the available evidence (evidence available for all to see) to see which claimant to the throne of authority has the strongest case. Your testimony of the witness you received is not evidence for me, since I can’t observe you experiencing the experience of receiving the witness. I can’t feel what you’re feeling as you’re feeling it. And vice versa. Relying exclusively on the witness of the spirit to back up your claims is not enough to be persuasive to anyone.

NS

 

[CHRISTINE77]

You imply that the guidance of the Holy Ghost is the final arbiter of truth. What do you do when two people with contradictory views claim the Spirit’s guidance? How do you convince that person that s/he is wrong? Do you say “the Spirit can’t have guided you to that view, since the Spirit guided me and I know I’m right” or do you point the other person to some authority? If you do the former, then all of these Catholic-Mormon debates are a waste of time since the “I felt the Spirit and you didn’t” arguments are completely useless. If it’s the latter, then the Spirit isn’t the final arbiter; the third thing between you and the other person, the authority you point to, is the final arbiter. But then the other person can say to you “how do you know that authority is correct?” and you’ll say “because the Spirit led me to that view”. And so, everything comes full circle and we have resolved absolutely nothing. The Spirit and your own personal experience can’t be the final arbiter. God wouldn’t leave us trapped in a vicious cycle of circular reasoning - which is where the Holy Ghost-based approach to finding truth inevitably leads us. It makes sense that he would leave us an authority to trust, but determining who that authority is can’t be determined solely by prayer and the witness of the spirit (for the reasons just mentioned). We must also examine the available evidence (evidence available for all to see) to see which claimant to the throne of authority has the strongest case. Your testimony of the witness you received is not evidence for me, since I can’t observe you experiencing the experience of receiving the witness. I can’t feel what you’re feeling as you’re feeling it. And vice versa. Relying exclusively on the witness of the spirit to back up your claims is not enough to be persuasive to anyone.

NS

Yeah how about Joseph Smith’s spiritual revelation about polygamy? Do you Mormons still believe it was inspired by the Holy Spirit?

 

[ParkerD]

Yeah how about Joseph Smith’s spiritual revelation about polygamy? Do you Mormons still believe it was inspired by the Holy Spirit?

Christine,
Fair question. Answer: no–an angel told him that that was God’s will at that particular time, and he (and later others whom he taught it to) reluctantly complied–very reluctantly. The portrayals and assumptions that he wanted to do that and therefore “made up” a revelation about it just don’t hold up when carefully examined in light of the circumstances of historical records. He was very happily married. The letters he wrote to his wife, Emma, are poignant and vibrantly full of loving affection.

Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Heber C Kimball, and others perceived that angelic revelation as a test of their faith–an Abrahamic test of colossal proportion. Their faith was the crux of the matter–could they do something totally contrary to their belief system, if God commanded it and it could be established by two witnesses (the one being Joseph Smith, the other being Abraham’s practice of polygamy in the Bible) as being from God?

 

[cothrige]

Cothrige,
My experience and my observation of how the Savior taught as well as the passage 1 Kings 18-19 about Elijah and the false prophets, says to me that the Lord wants our faith to progress. The Savior fed the 5000 and the 4000, then when they wanted more loaves and fishes and He didn’t supply it to them, they “went away” (meaning they didn’t continue to listen to Him), and he asked his disciples, “will you also go away?” They had greater understanding about His mission. It was more than to feed their hunger. This they knew by experiences of the heart.

Okay, but I don’t think that really impacts on my point. The entirety of scripture, viewed as an interrelated whole, is a history of God making himself manifest to his people. He is not a distant hidden God. Your theory is founded upon an assumption that God insists that there be no “proofs” of his existence present in his people, and I see no reason to assume that at all. And, then if you can demonstrate that, you still have the problem of really showing that God would tamper with the historical evidence in order to cover up what really happened. That is unprecedented, to my knowledge, in regards to God and also seems a bit deceptive, and so I just could not accept that view at all.

 

[ParkerD]

NewSeeker,
I was thinking last night about your situation. In the Book of Mormon is a telling experience of a group of people who ended up finding the record of the Jaredites–a rich treasure important to them and important to us. They found that record because a leader was “overzealous” to explore, and placed the group in a somewhat hazardous circumstance.

But God’s purposes were fulfilled even though Zeniff could have felt he had made a mistake. The prophet Alma listened to Abinadi in the midst of King Noah’s court, and some of the plainest teachings in the Book of Mormon come through Alma and Abinadi.

So if you asked and have essentially been “told” (by the best use of your own reason and sincerity) that Catholicism is true for you, then I think God has a purpose in that which will be evident in its own time. There is no question that you can do much good within the religion you have chosen. As Diana has said, it has much truth, and it uses the Bible which is a storehouse of knowledge. I have no idea what reason God may have for answering your prayers in such a way, but He does have a purpose, obviously. His purposes are fulfilled through people all over the world within many different religions.

 

[cothrige]

Cothrige,
Since the two of us are doing a tandem set of responses here, I suppose I wouldn’t be out of place to respond:

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

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

I have also confirmed the teachings by living them in my own life, such as teaching my children actively and having daily family prayer, living frugally and conservatively and getting out of the stock market with my 401K before the big downturn. Why? Because I was listening to a prophet’s counsel.

Okay, I think I understand what you are saying. But, it sounds to me like what you are describing is that each LDS member prays for guidance regarding every individual teaching and revelation. Does that mean that if, after such prayer, you were simply convinced that the Spirit was leading you to reject that the Church is right about say celestial marriage (is that the right term? ) you could deny that publically without concern about backlash from the Church itself? Does that mean that the LDS Church doesn’t have any concept like heresy? Or excommunication regarding that?

The reason I ask is that if a Church has a teaching which it insists must be held it is claiming infallibility. Any teaching at all. If there is a doctrine that God is this, or that, and if you deny it then you are not eligible for this or that privilege then you are claiming some form of universal guarantee of truth. That is infallibility. It may be used often, or rarely, but it still fits the bill. If the LDS really do not believe in any infallibility within the Church then there really could be no results to disobedience or rejection of doctrines. I have a suspicion that you and Scriptorian may be using the word infallible with a slightly different meaning or intent than how we Catholics use the term.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Christine,
Fair question. Answer: no–an angel told him that that was God’s will at that particular time, and he (and later others whom he taught it to) reluctantly complied–very reluctantly. The portrayals and assumptions that he wanted to do that and therefore “made up” a revelation about it just don’t hold up when carefully examined in light of the circumstances of historical records. He was very happily married. The letters he wrote to his wife, Emma, are poignant and vibrantly full of loving affection.

Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Heber C Kimball, and others perceived that angelic revelation as a test of their faith–an Abrahamic test of colossal proportion. Their faith was the crux of the matter–could they do something totally contrary to their belief system, if God commanded it and it could be established by two witnesses (the one being Joseph Smith, the other being Abraham’s practice of polygamy in the Bible) as being from God?

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.

 

[ParkerD]

Okay, but I don’t think that really impacts on my point. The entirety of scripture, viewed as an interrelated whole, is a history of God making himself manifest to his people. He is not a distant hidden God. Your theory is founded upon an assumption that God insists that there be no “proofs” of his existence present in his people, and I see no reason to assume that at all. And, then if you can demonstrate that, you still have the problem of really showing that God would tamper with the historical evidence in order to cover up what really happened. That is unprecedented, to my knowledge, in regards to God and also seems a bit deceptive, and so I just could not accept that view at all.

Cothrige,
I agree that it appears deceptive based on your assumptions. I make the assumption that God really does want us to develop “faith as a grain of mustard seed” which means a seed of faith can produce incredible growth. I assume from Hebrews 11 that God wants great faith in His people. How does He help in that process if He makes it easy for us?

I don’t think He is distant or hidden. I feel His close presence every day, often. There is nothing distant or hidden about it. It is exactly as Samuel and Elijah described. It is exactly as Paul described. It is the palpable, discernible, understandable presence of the Holy Ghost and the absolute knowledge that Jesus lives in actual reality.

 

[cothrige]

The trouble with the kinds of questions that you are asking is that they have been asked a zillion times before, and answered a zillion times, at least by myself if by no one else.

I couldn’t personally care less about how many times a question has been answered. I have not asked it, and I am now. If you wish to answer it, fine. If not, then why post?

That is why I created that Blog, to save me the trouble of having to answers them again and again. That also explains why I am reluctant to engage in this kind of debate, **because I would be bored out of my pants if I did! **You can read my Blog post on archeology here, and on DNA here. If you are not interested in reading those, that is okay; I am not interested in debating it with you either!

zerinus

Well, that clearly explains why you keep posting on this debate and discussion forum. Maybe I should go leave comments on your blog about how I haven’t got time to read your blog?

 

[cothrige]

Ah, but that’s the rub, isn’t it?

We ‘know’ these things because we follow the advice of the scriptures; we examine all things (and people) that claim to be of Him, study those things, think about them…then pray for guidance. Through the guidance of the Holy Ghost we can know the truth of all things.

But, again is there a concept of heresy in your Church? If a person denies a certain revelation or teaching are they denied some privilege or membership or something of the like? If so then it seems to me that there is some authority which is seen as dependable aside from personal conviction in the Spirit. If there isn’t then one would be able to deny some doctrines and keep otherse and still be LDS in good standing.

I will admit, I certainly may be wrong, but I just can’t help but think the LDS are thinking of infallible in a way other than we are, or have something else in mind one way or the other.

but as I mentioned, the problem isn’t the truth. It’s all the not-quite-as-true stuff people want to hang onto that truth. YOU guys think we are the ones hanging all the extras on, and we think you are.

Understood. But I really am not trying to suggest that something is extra. I was told that the LDS do not believe their Church is infallible and I am just trying to understand exactly what this means. What do you consider infallible when you deny it? It seems that it is very possible it is not what we are calling infallible. I wasn’t trying to prove that your Church was this or not, or that you are wrong in saying this or that, but I am just very unclear about what you mean when you say it. I would like to understand better so that when I talk to you I will better understand where you are coming from.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Christine,
Fair question. Answer: no–an angel told him that that was God’s will at that particular time, and he (and later others whom he taught it to) reluctantly complied–very reluctantly. The portrayals and assumptions that he wanted to do that and therefore “made up” a revelation about it just don’t hold up when carefully examined in light of the circumstances of historical records. He was very happily married. The letters he wrote to his wife, Emma, are poignant and vibrantly full of loving affection.

Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Heber C Kimball, and others perceived that angelic revelation as a test of their faith–an Abrahamic test of colossal proportion. Their faith was the crux of the matter–could they do something totally contrary to their belief system, if God commanded it and it could be established by two witnesses (the one being Joseph Smith, the other being Abraham’s practice of polygamy in the Bible) as being from God?

Actually I think Brigham Young was very reluctant to practice polygamy, but he did because he believed in Joseph Smith. It’s funny, but in a way I think your church is more based on Brigham Young and his actions, advice, teachings and practices more than it is on Joseph Smith. I think that Brigham Young is the reason the Mormon Church is so successful, but it is more due to his pragmatism and leadership, than the spiritual teachings of Joseph Smith.

Joseph Smith started out with a rather mainstream Christian gospel, (except for the new world part and the plates)and gradually morphed his teachings into something MUCH more unusual. By the time Brigham Young took over, there were some seriously different teachings, that put Mormonism into a very peculiar form of Christianity. I’m not so sure it was all inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

[ParkerD]

Rebecca,
I personally dislike the whole polygamy situation, whether applied in the cases of Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or anyone else. But it happened. One can call it adultery, certainly, and many do, but that is casting a pretty big stone at Abraham and the Abrahamic religions. I choose not to do that, because of the very thing I have been trying to convey–God directs His children through revelation, if they are willing to ask and to listen.

 

[NewSeeker]

NewSeeker,
I was thinking last night about your situation. In the Book of Mormon is a telling experience of a group of people who ended up finding the record of the Jaredites–a rich treasure important to them and important to us. They found that record because a leader was “overzealous” to explore, and placed the group in a somewhat hazardous circumstance.

But God’s purposes were fulfilled even though Zeniff could have felt he had made a mistake. The prophet Alma listened to Abinadi in the midst of King Noah’s court, and some of the plainest teachings in the Book of Mormon come through Alma and Abinadi.

So if you asked and have essentially been “told” (by the best use of your own reason and sincerity) that Catholicism is true for you, then I think God has a purpose in that which will be evident in its own time. There is no question that you can do much good within the religion you have chosen. As Diana has said, it has much truth, and it uses the Bible which is a storehouse of knowledge. I have no idea what reason God may have for answering your prayers in such a way, but He does have a purpose, obviously. His purposes are fulfilled through people all over the world within many different religions.

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

 

[ParkerD]

Okay, I think I understand what you are saying. But, it sounds to me like what you are describing is that each LDS member prays for guidance regarding every individual teaching and revelation. Does that mean that if, after such prayer, you were simply convinced that the Spirit was leading you to reject that the Church is right about say celestial marriage (is that the right term? ) you could deny that publically without concern about backlash from the Church itself? Does that mean that the LDS Church doesn’t have any concept like heresy? Or excommunication regarding that?

The reason I ask is that if a Church has a teaching which it insists must be held it is claiming infallibility. Any teaching at all. If there is a doctrine that God is this, or that, and if you deny it then you are not eligible for this or that privilege then you are claiming some form of universal guarantee of truth. That is infallibility. It may be used often, or rarely, but it still fits the bill. If the LDS really do not believe in any infallibility within the Church then there really could be no results to disobedience or rejection of doctrines. I have a suspicion that you and Scriptorian may be using the word infallible with a slightly different meaning or intent than how we Catholics use the term.

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.

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.

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.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,
I personally dislike the whole polygamy situation, whether applied in the cases of Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or anyone else. But it happened. One can call it adultery, certainly, and many do, but that is casting a pretty big stone at Abraham and the Abrahamic religions. I choose not to do that, because of the very thing I have been trying to convey–God directs His children through revelation, if they are willing to ask and to listen.

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.