Jump to content

Maureen

Members
  • Content Count

    76
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

45 Excellent

About Maureen

  • Rank
    Newbie: Without form, and void
  • Birthday 11/23/1959

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

953 profile views
  1. It looks like she is the daughter of Mark Eubank. https://www.lds.org/church/leader/sharon-eubank?lang=eng M.
  2. I'm going to guess that the words "married" or "sealed" in the temple are being used synonymously. M.
  3. Does this mean you don't trust the message when it comes from a GA, as in when they speak during GC? M.
  4. It appears that the Baseball Baptism program was also Henry Moyles idea. Stands to reason that if Moyles realized he needed converts to fill those meetinghouses, he needed a way to create converts. M.
  5. The reason Scott gave for why he didn't take the job was "because the remuneration that was budgeted for it was not enough to make it worth my while..." So it's possible that if Church leadership had provided a larger budget toward the almanac, that Scott would have taken the job. M.
  6. @MustardSeed, as a Protestant, the cross for me represents the atonement; salvation, grace and love that comes from Christ's sacrifice. If you're interested in how this aversion to the cross began in LDS history, I recommend the book by Michael G. Reed called Banishing the Cross, The Emergence of a Mormon Taboo. M.
  7. Actually it's a lttle hard. I had no idea what question you were referring to. M.
  8. Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this but, he actually is not welcomed to do that. Your Church's Handbook states: Members of the Church are discouraged from making telephone calls or writing letters to General Authorities about doctrinal issues or personal matters.... M.
  9. I don't know if I would be considered new. I tend to lurk and read more than post. I'm a regular poster at the ThirdHour forum (aka MormonHub, lds.net). I was finding the threads at ThirdHour were getting a little boring and noticed that this place is more free to discuss topics. This place is not boring. M.
  10. I think you're maybe confusing Canada with a different country. In Canada, Latter-day Saints sealings in the temple are recognized as legit wedding ceremonies. Just like all other wedding ceremonies in any other church. You just need to make sure you have a marriage licence and a legit Officiator. M.
  11. In this sense using the word "within" or "inside of" is probably not the best way to describe God. As opposed to seeing "persons" as inside or within God, it's easier to see God as these persons, God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. My understanding of Judaism is that God is formless. For Mainstream Christianity, God is spirit. How to interpret that or explain that is another question. But Christianity does believe that the only person of the Trinity to be fully human and fully divine is Jesus. He was resurrected with a corporeal body, a glorified body, but nonetheless a body. The persons of the Trinity are seen as equal in glory and nature. None of the persons of the Trinity are above or greater than the other, they are coequal and coeternal. Not sure what you mean by passionate, but if you're referring to the term, "without body, parts and passions" that typically means that God does not require anything outside himself for existence, since God is existence. God does not have a body therefore he does not require air to breathe, food to eat for his existence. God is outside time and space because God created time and space. But he also chooses to interact with humankind who exists in a time and space environment. Agape Love is selfless, sacrificial and unconditional, God is Agape Love. Scripture describes God in anthropomorphic form because it's easier for humans to relate to a divine being with human attributes. Scripture also describes God as a door or with wings. @Anakin7, you are correct that I do not agree with your interpretation on how Trinitarians understand God. M.
  12. @Anakin7, you keep using the phrase "inside of" which I don't follow. Can I ask you why you think "inside of" God is important or relevant in understanding who or what is God? I use the pronoun "He" because as a human being it's just easier to refer to God with that pronoun. God is shown as a Father figure to his creation. But in terms of a literal being I understand God as being genderless. M.
  13. @Anakin7, I am not familiar with Tertullian, and I have no wish to read extensively into this, but from what I have gathered, some of his thoughts on the Trinity do not follow how I view the Trinity. For example from Wikipedia: Influenced by Stoic philosophy, the "substance" of Tertullian, however, was a material substance that did not refer to a single God, but to the sharing of a portion of the substance of the Father (the only being who was fully God) with the Son and, through the Son, with the Holy Spirit.[12] He wrote his understanding of the three members of the trinity after becoming a Montanist.[11] The bold part I definitely do not agree with, therefore I cannot agree with Tertullian's understanding of the Trinity. For my own description of the Trinity, I use the word "being" to differentiate from the word "person" to make it somewhat clear how the Trinity understands the persons of the Trinity from God. For example, there is one God in three persons, the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, but there are NOT three Gods (beings) there is only ONE God. And the better word to describe the persons of the Trinity is "distinct". The Father is the Father and not the Son or Holy Spirit, the Son is the Son and the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit; they are distinct from each other. Because God is One, we can't see the persons of the Trinity as parts of one God, because God cannot be separated into parts, he is One. The persons of the Trinity can be seen as God, individually and collectively. If I am having a conversation about the Holy Spirit, I am talking about God, if I am having a conversation about the Father and the Son, I am talking about God. I wasn't expecting to have this lengthy conversation regarding the Trinity, since it somewhat veers off the topic of the OP. M.
  14. On the 2nd link I found this: Here's Tertullian's very interesting explanation of what logos is: Observe, then, that when you are silently conversing with yourself, this very process is carried on within you by your reason, which meets you with a word at every movement of your thought … Whatever you think, there is a word … You must speak it in your mind … Thus, in a certain sense, the word is a second person within you, through which in thinking you utter speech … The word is itself a different thing from yourself. Now how much more fully is all this transacted in God, whose image and likeness you are? (ibid. 5) Logos is that voice you hear inside yourself when you are thinking. At least, that's a rough estimation of what logos means. Tertullian goes out of his way to describe it as "a second person within you" because he's bringing up the Logos of God as a second Person of the Trinity. In other words Tertullian sees the 2nd person of the Trinity as just the thoughts of the 1st person of the Trinity, the Father. I do not believe this or understand the Trinity in this way. For me, God has always existed as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, before the world even was created. The persons of the Trinity have relationships with each other. We as God's creation have a human nature, but there are multiple humans with each of us having our own nature. But because there can only be ONE God, there can only be ONE divine being. Therefore when we try to understand God (the Trinity) we must realize that God cannot be made into parts or separated into parts because God is ONE. The persons of the Trinity are distinct from each other, the Father is the Father, the Son is the Son and the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit, but THEY are ONE God. M.
×
×
  • Create New...