Jane_Doe

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

I have a friend who is on the brink of leaving the church and lately has been talking about alcohol a lot. I have no doubt that when she leaves she will likely drink. This is A woman who has been a true blue black-and-white thinker her whole life, very invested in the church.It has me thinking about my values and why I choose to live them. I honestly don’t believe I would be interested in drinking alcohol if I were for some reason to leave the church. I don’t drink because I want to be clear of mind at all times to the very best of my ability And to be honest I’m proud of my sobriety. I spend much of my life around alcoholics  and drinkers and it’s just simply not a lifestyle That appeals to me in anyway. I’m very healthy in many ways, running weight lifting juicing mindfulness exercise etc.

I also believe God wants me to be clear minded. 

I admit that I only abstain from coffee because it’s a rule for the temple. I have not come to grips with a belief that God cares much about coffee but since I have committed to Him that I won’t, He expects me to have integrity so I abstain. 

How about you? 

Honestly, even if I wasn't an LDS Christian, I won't partake in any of those things.  They just don't appeal to me.  I've been at too many work functions where people pay lots of money to look stupid and wreck their livers -- I can look stupid without aids, thank you very much.  And I have much sweeter ways to wreck my health.  Coffee is disgusting, and I have way too many friends that are absolute slaves to it.  Smoking isn't just disgusting, smelly and wrecks your health, but it also does that to eveyone/thing else around you.  No thank you.  

6 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I cannot be comfortable with saying that to be adopted is not to be literally God's child given the privileges that are bestowed upon the adopted children. But I know what you mean. God's only begotten Son receives all that the Father Is and has, naturally, apart from adoption. My objection to diminishing the adopted child, is because God only adopts children so that He can give them Himself. It is of another kind than the only Begotten Son, of a lesser kind, of course. But it still seems improper to diminish such a wonder as the adoption of sons and daughters by the Father, to imply that it is perhaps only figurative, or symbolic. There is too much active reality, too much that is miraculous to say that it is not literal. God makes them in to Himself. How about this? Could we agree on the expression that the adopted children of God are "literal adopted children of God"? I agree that there needs to be a qualification that distinguishes the only begotten Son from the adopted children. But certainly they are literally adopted? They are literally deified. Anyway, that is what is believed. The literally adopted child of God realizes like the dog, that they cannot begin to comprehend God, but the literally adopted child perceives that God is elevating them to become Him.

Of course no dog is literally a man's child. A dog is not made in a man's image and likeness and we would never say that a dog is literally a man's adopted child. We might call a beloved dog a man's child, but it would be symbolic. Because, like none of the other animals, humans have free will, as opposed to instinct in the animals, we are already more godlike before adoption. We are closer in respect to our spiritual capacity to be changed in to God, than the dog has to be changed in to a human. It is still a very useful analogy.

If I have expressed myself as though I was asserting "truths" to which you all give assent, I would like to make it clear that I am only trying to present what I think Catholics are required to believe about this subject. Often this leads to discussion. If so, fine. If not, maybe even better, even though I enjoy debate. I have been happy to recognize in you Jane_Doe, and indeed in many Mormons here, a desire to better understand what non-LDS believe.

Coming from the LDS perspective, I don't really understand what you seem by "literal" adoption here.  

LDS Christian believe in literal sonship -- you are literally a son/daughter of God.  While right now we don't remotely understand God, we will eventually completely understand and eventually completely become like Him.  Literally.

Creedal Christianity ... even in the eternities you're still a (metaphorical) dog.  A very beloved dog, has been taught the best manners, that spends every day with the master, sleeps in His bed with Him, and has everything a beloved dog could ever dream of.  But due to the Creedal doctrine of consubstantiality: they are forever a dog.  There is no literally becoming completely like God.

Sorry if that sounds downplaying-- I'm trying to be respectful here.  But from an LDS standpoint...honestly I find that Creedal Christians have a much more negative or lesser view of man than LDS Christians (speaking both of present-day man and eventual perfected man).  

7 hours ago, Broker said:

1) What do you think the Church means by "literal" children of God....or what do you think that means.

We are the same "type" as He is: have the same positional, and He leads us along the way.  As we don't know how "spiritual genetics" work, past then is really hard to say.

Another useful thing is to compare this to Creedal Christian beliefs: in Creedal Christianity, God and man are two entirely different "types" of creatures -- God being that forever immovable mover, and man being a flawed pitiful creation.  In Creedal Christianity, a person isn't literally a child of God, rather they are adopted by benevolent benefactor (God)--- somewhat* similar to the way a human would adopt a dog.  The master loves the dog, and fights for the dog, and even dies  for the dog.   But the dog's never going to be human-- it's not literally their child.   It's forever only a flawed mutt that the benevolence adopted.     (*somewhat = this is a very imperfect analogy). 

7 hours ago, Broker said:

2) Any possibility there are a few "Heavenly Fathers" out there, who have children on this earth ?

No.  

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

But this isn't about devotion to God or belief in Christ or belief in the atonement. This is specifically about "the cross." To use your example, I wouldn't dismiss your devotion to your family because you didn't have any pictures of them. However, if you told me that pictures of your family are super important to you, but then I didn't see any of those pictures, I would certainly question that.

That's what's going on here (and maybe that's where we are all talking past each other). I'm reacting to the claim that the cross is significant for LDS. As far as I can see it is not significant at all. However, I readily and easily admit that the sacrifice of Christ is significant. Those are two different yet related things.

And I don't think I'm splitting hairs here since the topic of this thread is "the cross" and the recent discussion has been about how the cross is significant to LDS. If we're talking about the cross, I just don't see it. If we're talking about the atonement of Christ, well, that's not the direct subject of this thread and discussion.

Anybody who knows me at work knows I love my family and I love God-- I talk about them lot with much enthusiasm and love.  My desk doesn't have to be decorated to somehow "prove" my love to them.  I don't need to have a decorative picture of my daughter on my desk to "prove" I love her, nor do I need a decorative picture of a cross to "prove" I love God.  That's my point.

If your point was simply to talk about the importance of external decorations (separated from the symbolism/meaning/significance, just the decoration itself as a decoration ).... yeah LDS Christians don't put a lot of emphasis there.    Certainly a lot less than iconography heavy faiths like Catholic Christians and Orthodox Christians.  LDS Christians don't do a lot of outward displays of inward devotions.  

1 minute ago, MiserereNobis said:

@Bernard Gui

I did my homework and looked up the sacrament prayers on the bread and water. Neither one mentions a cross. The bread mentions the body of Christ, and the water mentions His blood which was shed, but these are tangential references to the cross. They are references to Christ's sacrifice, for sure, but that is not the topic of this overall thread nor the current topic of discussion. The topic is about the cross and crucifix and its significance to LDS and, as teddyaware claimed, how its significance is greater for LDS than for other Christians.

I will readily admit that the sacrifice for Christ is significant for LDS (but I would neither say it is more or less than other Christians, because that's a silly claim). But I have a hard time accepting that the cross is significant since it is nowhere to be found publicly.

I worked in the same office for 7 years.  Most people have pictures up of their families, religious symbols, or other things they consider to be of value.  After 7 years, my desk area is barren of pictures of my family, or religious symbols, or anything else.

Does that mean I love my family or God less than those which did decorate their desk space?  No, of course not.  I don't think anyone's devotion to God or anything else is measuring by how they physically decorate themselves or their spaces.

Note: I'm not going to argue that any group of Christians values Christ or His sacrifice more than any other-- honestly I find such arguments to be very silly.   Equally silly is the idea that how a person/apce is physically decorated is indicative to their love or inward devotion to Christ. 

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

All pedophiles and predators should be shamed.  But if churches/schools and people can just be observing...no one should get away with pedophilia.  The very fact that it is obvious in church settings should ring a bell...access...access....to children!  But lets face it...eventually churches will have to do something.  I believe and hope the catholics are on board....but to hide and even promote those who have confessed and/or have been accused...should no longer be a part of the problem.  Wake up an smell the damn coffee people!!  Sorry but not.  So sick of excusing and making excuses for bishops..and others that ignore or even part of the problem.  No PR in the world is worth the trauma...all  the "yeah buts" and priesthood in the world isn't going to change the history of lives damaged.
"

No one is making excuses for pedophiles.

But we also need to see the WHOLE picture and not pretend that this is something isolated to churches, cause it's not.  

If you want to do your best to protect your kids from pedophiles, then educated them and build communication bridges.  So that way if their grandpa is crocked, or the neighborhood babysitter, or your best friend's husband, or a school teacher, or the neighborhood kid, etc -- that way your kids know the words to express things and get help.  

 Don't depend on any system to protect your kids for you.

3 minutes ago, changed said:

 

The LDS church is unique in that it claims to be "led by God" though, church leaders are not supposed to "lead people astray" and all that  ... church leaders are not supposed to ask you to endanger your children by taking care of their pedophile son... 

And that ex-mormon group you love so much: what do you say about all the pedophile predators laying there?  Shall you likewise decry the entirety of that group to be evil?

On 6/26/2019 at 6:52 AM, Key to the Ken-dom said:

A few years ago my wife and I started having issues, but divorce never entered my mind. My wife however, who comes from a history of divorce, surprised me with divorce papers. Not knowing what to do, I gave up way too easily and agreed to the divorce. I was surprised again recently when I got a letter from her new bishop saying that she requested a dissolution of our temple sealing. I had hoped that some day in the eternities that we'd be able to have a better perspective and eventually forgive each other and be a family again. Despite my writing a strong letter of objection to the church disagreeing with the dissolving of our sealing, I just got a letter saying that the first presidency went ahead and granted it to her anyway.

Does anybody have experience in this area? Why did the church not care at all about my opinion? If it was all her idea, why do I have to get approval before I can be sealed to somebody else, and is it hard to get that approval from the first presidency?

A marriage (in time or eternity) has to include two willing participants.  If one wishes to leave, neither the laws of the land or God will hold them caged.  You agreed to the civil divorce, and God will not hold her caged in a relationship she does not want to be in.

17 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

So, some Trinitarians would be ok with the Son having a visual physical body, but the Father being a visually and physically separate person of Spirit, whatever Spirit might be? That appears to make them of two different substances and persons, not one. 

I have been told I do not understand the concept of “person.” Yet I noticed 3DOP likes what you said.This is a new one for me after decades of speaking with Trinitarians of many stripes trying unsuccessfully to grasp what they believe and that what Joseph saw was a heretical deception.

It's not supposed to make logical sense, even Trinitarian will tell you that.

I had a longer answer typed up but then it got deleted.  I'll type more later.

28 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Hi again Jack...Honestly you don't know how the Trinity works? Me either!

(Just explaining some LDS Christian experience here)

I actually appreciate it when Trinitarian Christians do acknowledge that they don't understand how the Athanasian Trinity works.  It makes me 1) feel better about the fact that I don't either, and 2) I feel it's... honest?  Rather than trying to say "this is a square peg and it fits in square holes", acknowledging that this is a peg that not remotely square on any human-understandable shape.  Ironically, acknowledging "you're not supposed to deeply understand it" makes the very vague understanding easier.  Also Catholic acknowledgement that this is not a sola-scriptura doctrine helps too.

What is frustrating though: when I get yelled (usually by an "anti-cultist") who says essentially: "it's doesn't matter if it doesn't make any sense or it's clearly stated in the Bible- shut up and believe it anyways!!   Else you're going to burn in Hell and ain't a real Christian!".   That is... a time to smile politely & nod & walk away.

28 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

If the Son and Spirit are God, as Catholics believe, it is because their divinity is derivative in contrast to the Father. Anyway, that is probably "priestcraft", according to some of your fellows. 

Not really.  

2 minutes ago, Anakin7 said:

  This may help Jane Doe - https://www.christian-history.org/definition-of-the-trinity.html   

May True Grace Be with you and all.

Anakin7

Thanks.  I quickly y read over this and have in=depth studied many similar in the past.

57 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Could you clarify something for me? Are you saying non-LDS Christians are OK with the Father and Son being separate physical beings as per the First Vision? Not that they believe Joseph, but that his description of them was theologically correct?

(Disclaimer: I am NOT a Trinitarian.  I'm just a person who best tries to understand what it is Trinitarians believe.  I COMPLETELY welcome any actual Trinitarians to answer this question).

The actual Trinity (not modalism) acknowledges that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three different persons.  Christ doesn't pray to Himself, nor does He pat Himself on the back with "Behold my beloved Son".  It's the Father saying that line, and to whom the Son is praying to.  They are 3 different persons, a point that LDS Christians agree with.  The point of disagreement is the *how* 3 are 1: LDS Christians pointing to unity.    Trinitarian Christians point to ontological oneness through a shared substance (wherein they differentiate between a 'person' and a being')  -- yes this is extremely confusing for all folks, hence the difficult in explanations for all involved.

As to the First Vision: a Trinitarian isn't going to have any issue with the fact that the Father and Son are different persons.  What they are going to have an issue with is the Father (like the Son) wearing a tabernacle of perfected flesh, versus being spirit like the Holy Ghost.  And that then consumes the discussion. 

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hi HappyJack.

I would like to offer a correction of a suggestion you made that no one else seems to have caught. I know you meant no ill, but you will understand why I would want the record to reflect that very few non-LDS for about the last 1700 years would defend what you propose as a common belief.     

I note that you concede that this is only "as far as I understand", but I can't imagine how anyone could get the idea that what is called Modalism (different modes of one person), or Sabellianism (after Sabellius, an early proponent of the error), is very widely believed today. I do not think it has been a very successful error at all. Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Baptists, Methodists, Catholics and Orthodox, Nazarenes, and LDS all reject the idea. The Nicene Creed, which has informed much non-LDS theology, teaches that Jesus is "God from God, Light from light, true God from true God". Father and Son are eternally distinct. In the west the error eventually became known by an apt, but for modalists, problematic title, Patripassionism. This would be because if Jesus IS God the Father, it was the Father who bled and died for sins. While "modalism" might seem to solve some problems for monotheists, the Patripassionism which it implies, is unthinkable to virtually all Christians of today and from Apostolic times. It is probably because of this particular implication of Sabellianism, that the error never really achieved much success.  

Thanks...God bless.

Rory

I'm going to come out here and say this: a LOT of LDS Christians misunderstand Athanasian Christians (aka Christians that adhere to the Athanasian Creed) and mistakenly think that the Athanasian "trinity" = modalism.  It is a tragically common misconception.  As to how it originated / continues to be, in my observation it seems to be correlated with a few things--

1) A lot of people sitting in Trinitarian pews nowadays are not well studied and actually believe modalism.  Many Protestants haven't even read the Creeds.  An LDS Christian asks their Trinitarian friend "hey what do you believe?" and they answer explaining modalism.  Or just accidentally give a modalist explanation. 

2) Low-quality apologetic efforts (such as "anti-cult" preachers) continually deride LDS Christians for believing that the Father, Son, and Spirit are 3 different persons/beings.  Hence, the LDS Christian comes to the conclusion that the 'Trinity' is modalism (belief in 1 person/being).  The louder the "anti-cult" preacher shouts, the more and more cemented idea that Trinity = modalism becomes.  Hence yet another example of how low-quality apologetics are damaging to everyone. 

3) Once an idea becomes implanted in a group's collective head (like Trinity = modalism), it is just really hard to get out.

The way to better address this and improve things all around: it requires true Christ-like love, fellowship, and high-quality explanations.  I admire your stance and progress in that regard @3DOP, as well as @MiserereNobis, and try to be such an ambassador myself.  It's not an easy task, as the low-quality path of falling is some such easier and well traveled by people from both camps.

6 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I honestly didn't know where the line was drawn on this issue. That's why I asked: is it forbidden, discouraged, or not recommended? Those are different levels of disapproval and I was trying to figure out where this fell. It's probably the Catholic in me; we tend to categorize and classify everything.

Great!  

As usual, LDS Christians are less into specific categories/labels than Catholic Christians.  Hence that lack of specific categorization/labeling here.  

In the LDS Christian theology: Christ tells us to pray to Father in the Son's name.  So we do that.  To do otherwise would be not doing what Christ asked of us.  If somebody were to be openly doing otherwise, it would perhaps be something that a friend/advisor could gently correct them on- after all we do want to do as Christ asks of us.  But there isn't a formal "disciplinary" process dealing with it (such isn't really LDS Christian way of doing things).

As to the example of praying to Heavenly Mother: back several decades ago, there were several people whom very publicly advocated that people should do this.  In other words: they were very publicly advocating that people should do something contrary to what Christ asks of us.   Such advocating/teaching is a problem, and they did not listen to their local leaders whom correct them on this.    Hence it became a bigger deal, with President Hinkley openly came out reminding us to do as Christ told us to do.  I don't remember what happened to the ringleaders advocating otherwise... they might have been excommunicated, honestly I don't remember.  

20 hours ago, cinepro said:

We did, but the only missionary I spoke with was a sister from the Philippines.  It was really crowded.

The oddest thing at the open house was that they set up a big picture of the Temple in the visitor's center that you could stand in front of to take a picture.  I couldn't understand why someone would want a picture of themselves standing in front of a big picture of the Temple when the real thing was just outside.

Answering as somebody who's always seems to attend open houses when it's raining...

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

The church's new 'come and see, some and serve, come and stay' program is emphasising using language that nonmembers understand.  It has examples of someone calling up a friend to ask them to come listen to her speak in church, only instead of telling the friend that she is going to give a talk, the girl tells the friend that she is going to give a sermon.  We went over these videos in our last stake conference leadership training meeting and the visiting 70 specifically pointed out the change in terms and how important it is.

I'm guessing the use of the term 'instruction room' instead of 'endowment room' during an open house is a similar thing.  

In regard to this room, it literally does have the name "Instruction Room".

As to making things understandable in general: I've always living in places where LDS Christians are a small minority.   As a teenager, I could

1) say "I'm going to Mutual" and have my friends go "huh?" and spend the entire short conversation defining terms, or

2) say "I'm going to Youth Group" and have my friends go "Cool, what you doing there tonight?"

Having good communication with terms people understand is just a good thing in general.  It's more important to have the meaning of something understood & convey the important stuff, rather than focus on learning Mormon-ese when we don't have to.  When the term is LDS-Christian-specific and there isn't a mainstream equivalent, then I'll explain things.  But when a simple analogous term does exist, why not use it to facilitate better communication?

17 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

You have 4 empty rooms available for adult SS?  We're in a Stake Center and we don't have empty rooms available. 

It's room like the YW room, the Scouting room, combine a couple of the smaller classes (open the barriers) etc.  It's purposely smaller room sizes, and rooms that were opened up with the new 2 hour schedule (like YW don't use their room on SS weeks).  

7 hours ago, Doctrine 612 said:

Question: so yesterday the Sunday school president told everyone that is sending the Sunday school teacher lesson supported materials to stop. 

Because the SS teacher is the one to receive revelation for the class preparation, not the students.

Is this weird or a normal thing in the church?

Never heard of that at all.

I'm guessing that this specific advice was geared toward a specific individual whom was being overly helpful (aka completely backseat driving) to a timid teacher.  So the SS presents stepped in a put this out their to tell the specific individual to cut it out.  

1 hour ago, iamchuck said:

I was called as Sunday School President and am curious about how others do teacher training or manage multiple adult Sunday School classes.

Do you do teacher training from the Teaching the Savior's Way? When, how often and where do you hold it?

Are you holding multiple Adult Sunday school classes? How do you manage traffic or class sizes between the two, or do you allow them to self-regulate? 

Thoughts about what works, or doesn't, would be great!

 

Honestly, I don't know what our ward is doing for teach training nowadays.

We are holding multiple adult Sunday School classes though (4?).  There's a big drive in our ward to keep the classes smaller for better discussions (which works really well  for us).  Each class is specifically held in a smaller space (like the YW's room) to keep the cozy feel.   Beyond that things just self-regulate fine.  

Our ward considered the idea of "assigning" classes for a while and... frankly it made us all feel like kids, so we ditched it.  It's totally fine if people get to pick their Sunday School class.  

41 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Recently one of our Stake Presidency members made an observation that I hadn't considered before, he said in essence if someone goes inactive then we need to respect their right to choose that, even if it wouldn't be our choice. I was thinking too if someone is inactive should we just leave them be and not bother trying to reactivate them by respecting their choice to be inactive? how far do you take the idea of respecting someone's agency?

Always be friendly and keep the door open for people.  And respect a person's choice whether or not to walk through it. 

Yes.  But we of course would was into improve understand over time.  

On 5/1/2019 at 10:26 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

And I will tentatively say I welcome such a change. Our youth have long been over-programmed and over-scheduled with the combination of school activities and homework, community sports and other pursuits and Scouts/Young Women. Way too little leisure time and opportunity left for family interaction and memory making. That’s my regret as my children have now begun entering  adulthood. 

I agree that kids today are WAY over scheduled.  But personally I see the need to cut back and pick from great things and the best things.  And I do see getting spiritual instruction/growth to be one of the best things  for a teenager, both in a structured program & personally at home.  

Your kid doesn't need to be at soccer practice 3 nights a week + games & piano 2 nights a week & Chinese lessons & church actives & hockey.  Yes, I realize the pressure for this over-scheduling is HUGE -- people saying you need to round your kid out, it'll improve their resume for college, you need to give them opportunities, etc.   But it's just too much.  Cut down on a lot of those and focus on a very small number of best things.