Calm

No, I would say ‘don’t trust, but use and verify and if you can’t verify, don’t use or use with disclaimer’….because you know, I don’t do ‘short and to the point’ that often. There are, imo, too many common errors to trust as in making stuff up about sources when the source doesn’t say or acting like there is a source and then when asked for one, there’s nothing. I don’t think I have had one not brief response without an error. That’s not trustworthy in my view. Or since it’s a ‘machine’, I should say not reliable. Very useful still. Most definitely

But the impetus for this thread is I don’t trust Chat so I want to get it from people who actually hold the belief of the Trinity. I appreciate your efforts and realize I was vague to being with so your first post makes sense to me, but asking Chat and getting similar info was what got me wondering in the first place. Chat can only regurgitate what gets put into it, it can’t tell me the lived experience, which is what I am wanting here. In the future, unless you are curious yourself and think others besides me may be interested, save yourself some work if I start a conversation with “I don’t trust Chat”. This means I have been using Chat, but don’t believe it’s giving me a complete picture or couldn't check its accuracy for some reason or it’s incapable of giving me what I want, the POV of an actual person. Iow, putting up a response from Chat—or wiki for that matter as personal POVs/impressions, etc are not supposed to be included iirc—is likely to get a bit of an eye roll from me when I say “I don’t trust Chat”. 2 A and 2 D came closest for me, but still not quite on target, but I almost didn’t read those two points because scanning through the bulk of it led me to believe it was irrelevant to my question clutter as I already knew all that. I can be patient for answers when I make special requests. People don’t need to post to make me feel listened to.

I feel like missionaries would be easy targets as they would be very visible. It wouldn’t take long to figure out they weren’t home during the day or take much effort to rip off a backpack that wasn’t fully attached to its owner, so I can see value in keeping passports at the mission office. My brother’s apartment got broken into and everything taken not long after he arrived in Australia (first Spanish speaking set of missionaries there, which seemed very odd at the time) and for some reason he felt he had to deal with it himself, so made due with his one set of clothing he was wearing for way too long. I never carried my visa with me when in Canada and completely forgot we carried them with us when in Russia…or rather my husband mostly did because he wore the fanny pack, lol (Russians were not typically friendly unless introduced by another Russian in Moscow, so I didn’t go out on my own much, too nerve wracking just being stared at while I was trying to buy something with my few words and lots of pointing), so it didn’t occur to me now that they could be split up, one didn’t have to have both if stopped by police or for anything needing id.

Not me!

This is exactly what I was looking for, thank you. I would also love to hear a Catholic POV (hint, hint @MiserereNobis or @3DOP or any other Catholic who drops by) In addition to that, I am looking for advice on phrasing…. In your view, is ChatGPT’s wording “God as a whole” appropriate to describe the Trinity? Is it too shallow or simplistic or is it sufficient? Or something else. I doubt if I will start using the phrase frequently, but I can see it might be useful in a few situations, but only if it can convey the correct sense. I don’t want to oversimplify the Trinity (is “God as a whole” even interchangeable with “the Trinity” or does it mean something else?) or perhaps the phrasing somehow demystifies the belief for me and that’s what is bothering me. Seems disrespectful if so.

I don’t know the thought processes that led Bruce R MConkie to choose that title, but I have always considered it to mean along the lines of teachings and beliefs that spiritually edify and educate rather than everything in it needing to be known to pursue the path of salvation. It was a edited compilation of sermons, letters, etc, so not systematically created by JFS even if BRM did systematize JFS’s ideas when he put it together (against JFS’s wishes iirc, but hard to say no to your enthusiastic son-in-law, I guess). So it’s a good idea not to assume even JFS thought much of the material was needed for salvation or comprehensive in any way, though no doubt he thought it would be helpful along the way or he won’t have shared his thoughts in the first place. The preface isn’t that helpful to pin down why Brother McConkie chose what he did and left out others: Formatting may be off. https://archive.org/details/JFSDoctrinesOfSalvation/page/n1/mode/2up

I want to get to nuances that don’t get conveyed in the wiki entry and likely can come only from believers as they talk because I don’t yet know the language for what I am thinking about. Also, this is about nonLDS Christians’ concept of Jehovah, not Jewish as I am focusing on the phrase Chat used, “God as a whole”, which is a new way of describing the Trinity to me and it feels off, like it is somehow diminishing how believers view the relationship between the persons of God in the context of the one being of God. “God as a whole” seems to be missing something that I don’t know, but only feel….thus lacking the language. I am familiar with the development of the name, that it was misinterpreted by Christians, etc, so no need to go into that for me, though interesting as was the info on LDS development, which I always think is a good topic to get mentioned. We need to remember our theology is developing and is not particularly systematic.

So sorry to hear this. What a harsh year you and your family are having. Will pray it ends with answers and what is needed.

I don’t trust ChatGPT, so asking nonLDS Christians here… I assumed Jehovah was the modern English for God the Father for other Christians, but Chat says that is not quite accurate, it is better to say it is for God as a whole, meaning the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Is that accurate and if so, does this mean you don’t really differentiate God into the Father and Son when reading the Old Testament? Maybe another way to say it is ‘the focus of the OT is on God as “one being” and in the NT on the “three persons”’? If it’s not accurate, how would you say it? Is Jehovah another name for the Father or something else?

I assume your home is livable (since you are there), but likely not as comfortable as it was formerly yet as that takes time (and often way too much money unfortunately). And you say your wife is recovering (I had not realized it was so extreme, it must have been terrifying and heartbreaking for you both). What of your son? How is he doing?

So I am looking at the Best Picture (Oscars) list and realized I haven’t paid any attention to it since 2007 and missed a few before that, lol. Before that even if I didn’t see them eventually in some cut version on TV, I would at least try to find out the plot. I just read the last one’s plot on wiki (Anora) because I had never heard of it that I can recall, not even an ad, and now wished I hadn’t (looked up the plot).

I think because there has to be something somewhat new or unique to be really captured by movies now because we have sooooo many choices these days, they need those to stand out. And that means it will be risky. I was watching a FB commentary a few days ago that talked about how unusual it was for the Lord of the Rings to get made because the fantasy genre had never really produced a financial success before. The original studio iirc gave up on it when Jackson wouldn’t make a shorter and thus less expensive film. Plus technology has produced a lot of short cuts that can give decent results where before I think the separation between good and easy was much more obvious with bad graphics and bad writing, so so music….so again, if they can make quite a bit of a profit with much less time and/or money investment, why bother with investing more to attempt to make a great movie (which will more likely just be a really good movie). Though I suspect a lot fool themselves into thinking it will be a good movie to excuse their choices to focus on the buck.

Back to the original question… What type of LDS salvation do you mean when you say “required for salvation”? Do you mean what is required to complete the whole process, what is often called now the covenant path and used to be “the path of salvation”? Or do you mean to be saved in at least the Telestial Kingdom or perhaps the Terrestrial? Perhaps you mean saved in the Celestial Kingdom? Or do you mean receiving exaltation after resurrection? Or something else? If you don’t specify which type of salvation you are asking for, you will get different answers from different people and they may all be right and not contradicting each other even if it looks like it for you.

Salvation is sometimes used as synonym for the whole covenant path, which includes exaltation. Exaltation is the fullest expression of salvation and thus we sometimes use “salvation” interchangeably with “exaltation”. We also sometimes just use it as the first step, salvation from physical death. So depending on the context and what we are focusing on and our personal preferences, it could mean simply salvation from death or any step on the way to and including exaltation or the whole journey. InCognitus and zealous gave separate explanations for some of the ways we use salvation. Those of us who talk a lot with nonLDS typically figure out we use salvation in confusing ways and so separate them out or request the person define salvation first, so we can try and avoid using a a particular definition that is different than what they were expecting. That is why I believe zealous asked you to define “salvation”. I don’t think he was insisting on your own personal definition, I think he just wanted to start at the same point you were starting. Not having a shared starting point is (I am guessing of course) how you ended up confused by the answers given as they weren’t specific to your question apparently and why zealous is now possibly frustrated, but at least looking for a more specific question from you so he and others can better focus on what you actually want.

It happens with every faith I have studied…just making an observation it’s a human weakness, to attack as a defense, strike out…originally because of fear of some sort, even just embarrassment, but it can become a habit imo as it’s much easier than a solid defense. And because of that, I have seen a lot of LDS doing it over the years unfortunately, even among our leaders (though it’s usually a thrown away line). And often it’s not a particularly well informed criticism either, it’s more of a caricature of a faith…especially if the target is Catholicism, but also atheism and agnosticism. I am less able to judge criticism of Protestant thought as less familiar with it. So when I am reading the opening post, I am thinking how easy it would be to slip in “LDS”where “Protestant” is at the moment. And I was even thinking about how we typically attack the Trinity, including at times “studied apologists” with strawmen, lacking in understanding of actual established doctrine. Protestants tend to be easier targets being less centralized and less official doctrine over all, imo. Fundamentalists, including those who label themselves Evangelicals when they visit the boards I have frequented, who do attack LDS tend to open themselves up with their criticisms to the same claims being used against their own faith…not in every case, but frequently. Whether that is one reason many do not share what their own beliefs are or not, I couldn’t say, but it’s disappointing as I would much prefer to learn about their faith than hear more strawmen or repeated attacks on my own. I think I have learned much more about Catholicism because of the Catholic posters I have encountered who would share their own beliefs when contrasting with ours or just when relevant. Not only did they educate me, but they made me interested enough I borrowed a Catechism from a friend and it was my nighttime nonfiction reading for several months. OTOH, I don’t believe my knowledge of Protestant thought has expanded that much since I first joined the online community back in 2001.

I can be 100% a Latter-day Saint and 100% American. It’s not paradoxical unless they are in the same category…like 100% LDS and 100% Catholic. Perhaps a better analogy is being 100% carbon and 100% helium (same category, closer to what we think of as substance when speaking of God)? Is it Catholic doctrine that humans and God are in the same category? I thought it wasn’t, that God is seen as intentionally sharing some of his attributes with humans, but that would be okay because there is overlap between, as in the aspect of God that can’t be in humans are not in humans and the aspects of humans that would contradict the Being of God are not shared by Him. Maybe you are just repeating a common criticism based on misunderstanding logic and/or math (Venn diagrams anyone)?

I have been wondering how you have been doing, if you have been able to feel like life is somewhat under control again. It’s personal info, so please don’t feel obligated to share just because I asked…seriously. I very much understand wanting to keep my worlds separate at times…I am just not very good at it, lol.

I definitely think there is an obligation to address people’s questions when criticizing others’ faith rather than just proclaiming one’s own.

Sorry I couldn’t get to it today…kept getting interrupted and then now too tired to dig too deep, so early church fathers will have to wait. I will try tomorrow, but it may be Sunday as family is visiting and the references with actual quotes and not paraphrasing aren’t as easy to find as I thought. Apparently there is debate on interpretation of early church fathers, surprise, surprise. Modern is easier to find, but not necessarily authoritative. Hopefully this works for it from His Eminence Metropolitan Maximos of Pittsburgh: https://www.goarch.org/-/the-dogmatic-tradition-of-the-orthodox-church https://orthodoxbridge.com/2014/05/16/concerning-eternal-marriage/

It was the “I don’t leave it up for long” that confused me.

Do you see yourself as spending a major portion of your life on this board?

Is he still writing Tennis Shoes books?

So a friend did research and passed it on to me: https://web.archive.org/web/20181206011915/https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/11/30/mormonisms-scarlet/ Annotations began in the late 60s, but while there was a flag, if the member moved, it would be removed after the new bishop called on seeing the red flag or whatever it was and was informed by the former bishop. Only in 1995 did annotations shift to only being able to be removed by the First Presidency.

I will be surprised if so because of claims made elsewhere, but it would explain why he was allowed to FaceTime with her if her parents were aware of the communication, though that could have happened when earlier. Do you know anything about his family?