Orthodox Church Or Lds Church

[Calm]

I am addressing the debate, which is, the Mormon position that God is neither infinite or eternal. You believe He is created. I understand you believe that creation is from existing material, which presents more problems (and I believe another topic).

I have not finished reading the whole thread but don't want to lose track of this comment....

LDS do believe that certain aspects of God were created. But doesn't the belief in the Incarnation of Christ with his human body also mean that Catholics believe there are some aspects of God (his human nature) that are created?

LDS believe that which is the eternal nature of God is uncreated, it has always existed as has all things eternal in nature such as the fundamental essence/element of man, that which we usually label "intelligence". That this "intelligence" of God was clothed first in spirit elements and then in physical elements does not mean we believe God was created, whether we are talking about God the Father or God the Son. This "organization" of eternal spiritual elements around the eternal core did not change in any fundamental way that eternal nature any more than the Incarnation of Christ changed his eternal nature.

As far as an infinite regression of Gods vs. an eternal God...seems to me they are both mathmatically logically equivalent in the sense that they both deal with "infinites" (though of course not all infinites are created equal).

Having said that, it should also be said that an infinite regression of Gods is only one possible interpretation of LDS belief, there are many--though not most--- LDS in my experience who have interpreted the teachings differently (see Blake Ostler for a thorough treatment of these variations).

On another point earlier in the discussion, I am wondering if those who believe in the Real Presence see something there similar to the Incarnation of God into a human body. IOW, if one had tested Jesus' body at the time of his mortality, doesn't the Incarnation teach that he would have appeared to be essentially identical in physical composition to any other human being? Yet he was fully God in catholic belief at the same time. It seems to me there might be a simiiar process of how God can be present in the physical composition of bread and wine as he was present in a human mortal body.

Or am I completely missing the point here.

On last comment---LDS do not use the term "Trinitarism" (sp?) in any way I've seen among themselves. They have adopted the term in academic discourse, but use it not in any unique way, but only as part of the academic discussion that other academics had already started (IOW, LDS were not the first to use the term "Social Trinitarism"). This usage has not migrated over into common discussions, at least not yet...and I highly doubt that it will as it is unnecessary for LDS discussion, the term "Godhead" fulfilling that function quite well for LDS belief.

[saemo]

I have not finished reading the whole thread but don't want to lose track of this comment....

LDS do believe that certain aspects of God were created. But doesn't the belief in the Incarnation of Christ with his human body also mean that Catholics believe there are some aspects of God (his human nature) that are created?

Jesus is begotten. God begets God. Incarnation, not creation, is how we describe God becoming Man.

LDS believe that which is the eternal nature of God is uncreated, it has always existed as has all things eternal in nature such as the fundamental essence/element of man, that which we usually label "intelligence". That this "intelligence" of God was clothed first in spirit elements and then in physical elements does not mean we believe God was created, whether we are talking about God the Father or God the Son. This "organization" of eternal spiritual elements around the eternal core did not change in any fundamental way that eternal nature any more than the Incarnation of Christ changed his eternal nature.

Yes, I understand this. The problem is, this is not creation, but transformation. And you are still left with the question of: What God was this that Created the material?

As far as an infinite regression of Gods vs. an eternal God...seems to me they are both mathmatically logically equivalent in the sense that they both deal with "infinites" (though of course not all infinites are created equal).

Yes, I don't see a problem with the mathematics. God^infinite, is what you have. And that doesn't match up well with the doctrine of One God.

On another point earlier in the discussion, I am wondering if those who believe in the Real Presence see something there similar to the Incarnation of God into a human body. IOW, if one had tested Jesus' body at the time of his mortality, doesn't the Incarnation teach that he would have appeared to be essentially identical in physical composition to any other human being? Yet he was fully God in catholic belief at the same time. It seems to me there might be a simiiar process of how God can be present in the physical composition of bread and wine as he was present in a human mortal body.

You are close. As God exists out of time, He can be present at every Eucharist. The Incarnation is the same idea. The Infinite and Eternal choosing to be present in time.

As to the "composition" of Jesus, anything is a guess, so we leave it as a divine Mystery.

On last comment---LDS do not use the term "Trinitarism" (sp?) in any way I've seen among themselves. They have adopted the term in academic discourse, but use it not in any unique way, but only as part of the academic discussion that other academics had already started (IOW, LDS were not the first to use the term "Social Trinitarism"). This usage has not migrated over into common discussions, at least not yet...and I highly doubt that it will as it is unnecessary for LDS discussion, the term "Godhead" fulfilling that function quite well for LDS belief.

That is good to note. It concerncs me that a LDS missionary would tell a prospective, Trinity believing Christian, that you believe in The Holy Trinity. I see that as a deception.

[Calm]

Jesus is begotten. God begets God. Incarnation, not creation, is how we describe God becoming Man.

Are you saying the human body of Christ was not created then, but is somehow eternal in nature?

The problem is, this is not creation, but transformation.

Are you transformed each morning as you put on clothes for that day? If not, what is the difference in an intelligence being clothed in spirit and physical elements?

And you are still left with the question of: What God was this that Created the material?

Since LDS teach that all elements are eternal, God did not create the material, only organized it.

That is good to note. It concerncs me that a LDS missionary would tell a prospective, Trinitarian believing Christian, that you believe in The Holy Trinity. I see that as a deception.

I can see this happening, but I don't see it as deception especially since many missionaries don't really understand many of the implications of Trinitarian belief, but as an attempt to find a shared concept to build upon in a familiar language, much as Paul did in referring to the "Unknown God" in Acts ( http://scriptures.lds.org/en/acts/17/23#23 ). Hopefully the missionary explains the differences as well so there is little confusion...in fact, the missionary would have to completely avoid what is in the missionary discussions in order to miss pointing out those differences.

In your experience, have you come across nonLDS who had been taught by LDS this way that didn't understand the difference in usage?

[Calm]

One question that I always think about is, when someone dies, wouldn't they realize that the LDS view is true, and that when a baptism is performed by proxy for them, why would someone reject it if they see what the truth is?

Learning Guy asked why anyone would refuse to accept a proxy baptism in the afterlife since it is likely by that time he or she would have the knowledge that the LDS Faith teaches the true Gospel of Christ.

Well, I'd say that human nature has never demonstrated an automatic acceptance of all things true. For example, there are still many smokers these days, even knowing the risks involved and the certain limitations they are imposing on their body even if they believe they might be lucky enough to escape cancer. No one who smokes is going to have a body in peak condition. It is impossible. Yet people chose to live their lives this way every day. Same thing with food choices, promiscuity, lack of exercise, etc.

Refusal to accept the Gospel could therefore be based on a desire to do things incompatible with the Gospel covenant even knowing that the potential is much higher within the Gospel than without.

Another possibility is pride. I know of people who see getting help from others to accomplish things as a weakness. If it isn't something they've done on their own, they don't value it. One young man, in particular, struck me as being fated for eternal boredom based on the self defeating notion that if God is omniscient, there was nothing that this young man could discover or contribute that wasn't already done by God and therefore why should he even try. There was no point in his view to even attempt higher education, etc. He saw his ultimate role as someone who would bring peace and prosperity to the world, but refused to even take a step toward learning how to do this on a local level or just within his own family because it was ultimately meaningless as it has all been done before by someone else (God).

So I see there are those who will refuse to accept the Gospel because it means they have to put their souls into the hand of God and ultimately be willing to live in "thy Will, not mine, be done". These are those who find the "better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven" concept appealing and if their 'kingdom' is limited to only one---themselves---it is of little matter to them (The Great Divorce by Lewis protrays this mentality quite well, imo).

I am sure there are other reasons why people will reject the Gospel even fully knowing its Truth and the ultimate Gift of eternal life that it gives, but these two will get you thinking enough in this direction. I prefer to focus on why people will accept the Gospel--the ultimate experience of Love and Community with God.

[saemo]

Are you saying the human body of Christ was not created then, but is somehow eternal in nature?

I am not sure what you are asking.

Are you transformed each morning as you put on clothes for that day? If not, what is the difference in an intelligence being clothed in spirit and physical elements?

Huh? (blank stare)

Since LDS teach that all elements are eternal, God did not create the material, only organized it.

What God created the material?

I can see this happening, but I don't see it as deception especially since many missionaries don't really understand many of the implications of Trinitarian belief, but as an attempt to find a shared concept to build upon in a familiar language, much as Paul did in referring to the "Unknown God" in Acts ( http://scriptures.lds.org/en/acts/17/23#23 ). Hopefully the missionary explains the differences as well so there is little confusion...in fact, the missionary would have to completely avoid what is in the missionary discussions in order to miss pointing out those differences.

In your experience, have you come across nonLDS who had been taught by LDS this way that didn't understand the difference in usage?

I run across nonLDS who have no idea that LDS have redefined many words that are common to Christianity. "Trinity", or even "God", are an example.

[Calm]

I am not sure what you are asking.

Where did Christ's mortal body come from?

Huh? (blank stare)

I am puzzled why someone who was LDS doesn't understand this concept. It is the way we teach the concept of physical embodiment starting in the first years of Primary. The specific analogy is that the body is the glove that the spirit puts on (is clothed in) for mortality. (see http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne..._&hideNav=1 )

What God created the material?

This question is meaningless to LDS as the material or "matter" is uncreated or as LDS say "eternal".

I run across nonLDS who have no idea that LDS have redefined many words that are common to Christianity. "Trinity", or even "God", are an example.

But do you have an explanation as to why they have no idea? NonLDS in general tend to be very uneducated in actual LDS theology.

[JangoPOW!]

LearningGuy,

Hey man, good on you for seeking the truth, and for doing your homework. I apologize that your sincere questions have devolved to some degree into a shouting match over tangents. You asked a couple of questions earlier, and I'm not sure if they were adequately answered or not, among all of the shouting.

Your question about the modern First Presidency being separate from the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, making a total of 15 apostles, while the ancient Peter, James, and John were apparently members of the Twelve, not separate from them, is a very good one. I wondered that a lot as a kid. It seemed like the one thing that was different in the Church organization.

Here is my answer to that, from my opinion and understanding (based on study, thought, and familiarity with ancient and modern scripture):

During Christ's life, HE WAS the First Presidency. The first presidency is a quorum representing Christ on earth. When Christ was on earth, he alone constituted the presidency of his Church, and the Twelve were a supporting quorum under his authority. After his death, the leadership devolved to the apostles and ultimately to Peter, the senior apostle. It is generally assumed in Mormon circles and teachings that James and John would have been his "counselors" in the presidency, as we call them now, because of their prominence both in ancient scripture (Gethsemane, Mount of Transfiguration, etc.) and modern revelation (bestowing the keys of the apostleship on Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery). Whether or not additional apostles were later added formallyto the Quorum of Twelve subsequent to Christ's ascension, Mathias's replacing Judas in the quorum (Acts 1), and Peter's formal ordination to the presidency (which we believe must have occurred), is simply not known from the historical record. However, it is interesting that in the New Testament epistles, additional men including Paul, Silas, and Timothy are referred to by the title "apostle" (c.f. Romans 11:13, Galatians 2:8; I Thessalonians 1:1 and 2:6). Neither of these men were included in the original Twelve Apostles during Jesus's ministry. Whether this appellation means they were actually ordained as members of the Quorum is unknown, but it is interesting to note and I believe it is certainly possible, if not probable.

This evidence is NOT proof positive, but it simply buttresses my opinion that the ancient Church could certainly have had a Quorum of Twelve AND a First Presidency in the years after Christ's ministry. There are at least 16 men called "apostles" in the New Testament (including Judas).

Hope that helps. Good luck to you!

[DH]

IMO, nobody but God Himself has the fullness of the Gospel. Being human, our understanding of the gospel (or of anything, for that matter) is exceedingly limited, to the point of being truly pathetic. We don't know all the facts, and we certainly don't know how they all fit and relate together, so we really don't have the fullness of the gospel.

The LDS cosmology works quite well for me, and it's possible that the LDS Church has an unusually large dose of truths to work with, but until the Church is comprised of perfect people with perfect understandings, we cannot claim to know everything. My approach to the matter is that I maintain membership in the LDS Church, and worship with the LDS regularly, but I also explore what other people have to say, and if I find truth, I'll (hopefully) accept it. Guess you could liken the LDS Church to my "base camp" during an exploratory mission. I would hope that other people would be willing to accept truths that we have to offer, too. During my mission we told people we were not there to take away the truths they already had, but to add to them, to offer them more. Likewise, I see no reason why we can't turn that principle around and learn from others.

Obviously, since I am LDS, I would encourage you to join the LDS Church, but that's a choice you have to make for yourself. And if you join us, there's nothing stopping you from accepting the good you see in the Orthodox Church, though if "our truth" and "their truth" contradict each other, you'll have to do some serious pondering before deciding which one you believe.

DH

[Cold Steel]

Irenaeus and Athanasius are considered â??Saintsâ? by both the Catholic and Orthodox branches of apostolic Christianity.

Yes. When I studied Orthodoxy, I did not take a corresponding course in Catholicism. We did, however, have one Orthodox member who'd brought his Catholic wife to the course, his intent being to convert her so they could be married. I took a close friend of mine who was studying for the Catholic priesthood and the debate between the two became quite heated. It wasn't because of my friend, but because of the open hostility of the Orthodox fellow. It's been years, so my recollection of details is fuzzy, but I will say that my friend was able to hold his own.

What I do recollect is that the Orthodox fellow was convinced that the Catholics had hijacked the religion. The Orthodox priest said the only sacrament that they had real problems with was marriage, but he wasn't clear about what kind of repercussions the Catholics would face for not doing it the way the Orthodox did. The Orthodox also go wishy-washy on baptism, emphasizing immersion, but practicing a great deal of sprinkling.

Here are a few quotes from distinctly Catholic sources that I have compilied....

Thank you. Great references.

Mormon doctrine appeals to me because the idea of there being a single entity who happened to look human didn't quite make sense. It meant that God and God only was the only uncreated thing in existence for untold trillions of years, if time can be reckoned, before he created a single thing. What did God do that entire time when He was alone? And what was the impetus that finally made him create something, anything? And having created man, why would He put one tree in the garden and forbid man to partake of its fruit? Even if not taken literally, the angels ended up in heaven knowing only bliss and men struggled, bled and died on a planet He created? And how can God, being good, create evil? Lucifer, being made of God, should have been good.

No religion can explain eternity, nor what eternity entails. But Mormonism begins with the precept that sentient life (and all life is sentient in Mormonism) is without a beginning nor is it without an end. Energy changes from one form to another, but nothing springs from nothingness (because only nothing can). God, angels and man all go through the same process and God is God for a reason, otherwise, why could He not remove the bitter cup from the One He loved most in all the universe?

In Mormonism, everything has a purpose, and each of us extends a hand to others in an attempt to raise everyone up. There is no hoarding of power or authority, for everything is attempting to achieve the Oneness that is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Without revelation, therefore, there can be no chain of command. Orthodoxy believes that God will somehow guide His church in ways we aren't privy to; Catholicism believes authority compels papal guidance. Both fail to see the Sacrament/Communion as a metaphor and instead each instills a mysticism that is foreign and even revolting to those who do take it metaphorically. Still, none of it is provable intellectually. That's why it's religion.

[danhoward1]

Bible Truth

I don't buy into a Catholic who claims he might become Eastern Orthodox (which is similar to Catholic) or he just might become a Mormon (thus jettisoning the whole Catholic/Orthodox faith). It doesn't compute at all. It's like saying, "I'm at Catholic who is interested in Orthodoxy, and I also might become a Jehovah's Witness, a Hare Krishna, or a Christian Scientist.

I don't think you are Catholic at all in the true sense of the word. If you were, you'd understand heresy and the ramifications of denying the Holy Spirit.

3DOP

Hi Bible Truth,

I am Catholic. I am not considering being anything else. But...if the unthinkable should happen, and I believed the Catholic Church to be false, I would still believe in God and Christ, looking for the true house of worship and instruction. I would look East, to the Orthodox, to be certain that whatever convinced me that the Latin Church failed, also caused the Eastern Church to fall. Next, I would look among Restoration movements that proclaim the Apostasy and attempt to incorporate the Gospel into their teachings. This would lead me to look at least at Islam and Joseph Smith...with the probable need to become familiar with the sects springing from each. If I wasn't satisfied that any of these restored the true house of worship and instruction, I would probably be waiting for the Restorer, be it Christ Himself or a Prophet. I have called this position "Restorationist-in-Waiting". I grieve at seeing so many disheartened Mormons turn their backs on God and Christ all together when they become disillusioned about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. What would you have done had you lived 300 years ago? Become an atheist? No? Well why do you have to believe that the true church is currently present, if you already believe that it has been hidden or gone for hundreds and even thousands of years? If you can't for a time reconsider the Apostasy question, at least wait patiently and look expectantly, even as aged St. Simeon did, whose devotion and faith in the absent Messiah was to last a long lifetime, his reward not coming until Our Lord was presented to him in the Temple. Digression...

Anyway Bible Truth, as a Catholic, there are really good reasons why I do not believe that any of the Protestant churches are the "one true house of worship and instruction" as I have been pleased to call it in this post. Principle among these are that I don't know of any that even say that they are the one true visible church. Do you? If Protestants cannot and will not propose the one true church to me, I take them at their word, and assume that they are correct. It is not among them. The invisible body of Christ you say, that is what matters most? Of course. Of course I hope to be a member of that Body. However, I haven't noticed that community taking out an ad in the Yellow Pages or publishing any books of theology. I can not speak for Learning Guy, but that would be the reason why I, as a Catholic, would consider the claims of Salt Lake, and Eastern Orthodoxy should I ever become disillusioned about the Roman Catholic Church.

Since becoming Catholic in 1995, I really haven't studied Mormonism, except passively as I've perused LDS message boards for the last nine years. I have read maybe a dozen books by Mormons, mostly from the period shortly before my conversion, when a friend of mine who has since become Catholic too, was leaning that way (that is also how I became acquainted with LDS message boards). I haven't read the Book of Mormon completely and I could never pray to God about whether it were true, so long as I have my Catholic faith. And may I never lose my Catholic faith. But if I should, I think I would follow the very path that Learning Guy seems to be on. If the Church apostatized, I think we are talking about the Head of the Church being cut off from the Body. Joseph Smith proposes a virtual miraculous resurrection of the Church which seems more plausible than some here today, gone tomorrow non-demoninational church somewhere that does not take note or account for what a serious and grave action it is to put out a sign, prepare your sermons, and tell people that Jesus Christ wants you to be under their pastoral care and authority. Some Evangelicals seem to do that nowadays with a willy-nilly business world mentality that only counts the bottom line. It seems to me like these new churches attract people who shop for churches the same way they would shop for clothes and hamburgers. But other Christian communities lay a much stronger emphasis on the need for the local church to justify its existence as a branch of the one true visible church. Yours probably doesn't and if I might, I would suggest that this critical difference in ways of understanding the local church, are partly why you appear to be baffled at Learning Guy's course of procedure.

It makes a lot of sense to me. All this has been said only because you didn't seem to believe Learning Guy was on the up and up. He strikes me as very sincere. I know Evangelicals and Catholics probably have more in common than Mormons and Catholics. But the choice of where and how to determine where to go to church is not one of them.

3DOP

All I have to say here is: I like this guy! (though I would, of course, recommend putting faith on the line and praying for answers to any question from the source of all knowledge:i.e. God)

[ed2276]

Bible Truth

I don't buy into a Catholic who claims he might become Eastern Orthodox (which is similar to Catholic) or he just might become a Mormon (thus jettisoning the whole Catholic/Orthodox faith). It doesn't compute at all. It's like saying, "I'm at Catholic who is interested in Orthodoxy, and I also might become a Jehovah's Witness, a Hare Krishna, or a Christian Scientist.

I don't think you are Catholic at all in the true sense of the word. If you were, you'd understand heresy and the ramifications of denying the Holy Spirit.

3DOP

Hi Bible Truth,

I am Catholic. I am not considering being anything else. But...if the unthinkable should happen, and I believed the Catholic Church to be false, I would still believe in God and Christ, looking for the true house of worship and instruction. I would look East, to the Orthodox, to be certain that whatever convinced me that the Latin Church failed, also caused the Eastern Church to fall. Next, I would look among Restoration movements that proclaim the Apostasy and attempt to incorporate the Gospel into their teachings. This would lead me to look at least at Islam and Joseph Smith...with the probable need to become familiar with the sects springing from each. If I wasn't satisfied that any of these restored the true house of worship and instruction, I would probably be waiting for the Restorer, be it Christ Himself or a Prophet. I have called this position "Restorationist-in-Waiting". I grieve at seeing so many disheartened Mormons turn their backs on God and Christ all together when they become disillusioned about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. What would you have done had you lived 300 years ago? Become an atheist? No? Well why do you have to believe that the true church is currently present, if you already believe that it has been hidden or gone for hundreds and even thousands of years? If you can't for a time reconsider the Apostasy question, at least wait patiently and look expectantly, even as aged St. Simeon did, whose devotion and faith in the absent Messiah was to last a long lifetime, his reward not coming until Our Lord was presented to him in the Temple. Digression...

Anyway Bible Truth, as a Catholic, there are really good reasons why I do not believe that any of the Protestant churches are the "one true house of worship and instruction" as I have been pleased to call it in this post. Principle among these are that I don't know of any that even say that they are the one true visible church. Do you? If Protestants cannot and will not propose the one true church to me, I take them at their word, and assume that they are correct. It is not among them. The invisible body of Christ you say, that is what matters most? Of course. Of course I hope to be a member of that Body. However, I haven't noticed that community taking out an ad in the Yellow Pages or publishing any books of theology. I can not speak for Learning Guy, but that would be the reason why I, as a Catholic, would consider the claims of Salt Lake, and Eastern Orthodoxy should I ever become disillusioned about the Roman Catholic Church.

Since becoming Catholic in 1995, I really haven't studied Mormonism, except passively as I've perused LDS message boards for the last nine years. I have read maybe a dozen books by Mormons, mostly from the period shortly before my conversion, when a friend of mine who has since become Catholic too, was leaning that way (that is also how I became acquainted with LDS message boards). I haven't read the Book of Mormon completely and I could never pray to God about whether it were true, so long as I have my Catholic faith. And may I never lose my Catholic faith. But if I should, I think I would follow the very path that Learning Guy seems to be on. If the Church apostatized, I think we are talking about the Head of the Church being cut off from the Body. Joseph Smith proposes a virtual miraculous resurrection of the Church which seems more plausible than some here today, gone tomorrow non-demoninational church somewhere that does not take note or account for what a serious and grave action it is to put out a sign, prepare your sermons, and tell people that Jesus Christ wants you to be under their pastoral care and authority. Some Evangelicals seem to do that nowadays with a willy-nilly business world mentality that only counts the bottom line. It seems to me like these new churches attract people who shop for churches the same way they would shop for clothes and hamburgers. But other Christian communities lay a much stronger emphasis on the need for the local church to justify its existence as a branch of the one true visible church. Yours probably doesn't and if I might, I would suggest that this critical difference in ways of understanding the local church, are partly why you appear to be baffled at Learning Guy's course of procedure.

It makes a lot of sense to me. All this has been said only because you didn't seem to believe Learning Guy was on the up and up. He strikes me as very sincere. I know Evangelicals and Catholics probably have more in common than Mormons and Catholics. But the choice of where and how to determine where to go to church is not one of them.

3DOP

Thank you for this post!

The question has been asked of us LDS before, what would we do if the LDS Church were to be proven false? Like you, I answered this question, I would still believe in God, The Father and in His Son, Jesus Christ, who is our Lord, Saviour and Redeemer; then I would look for the church closest to the true teachings of Christ. Would that search lead me to a Catholic faith? I don't know. Like you, if I could not find such a church I would not join with any of them.

[ed2276]

The first Mass I went to, I spent most of the time with an inner dialog that mainly involved, "What the hell is going on here?". I speant the week thinking of what I liked. My list: prayer, stained glass windows, the older woman who was really nice to me.

I went for four months, every Sunday, before I finally figured out that the entire service was about, and centered on, worship of Jesus. I spent a lot of time after that reading about the Mass.

Now, I can't wait for Sundays and try to get to a morning, weekday Mass, if I can.

I had the same experience when I attended my first Mass with my fiance. I didn't know what was going on.

There were times when we would be sitting in the pews, then have to stand, then kneel. The one thing that really touched me, though, was the giving of the sacrament (eucharist?) toward the end of the Mass ( I misted up). Not because I believed in the "real presence" or "transubstantiation", but because of what those emblems, the wafer and the wine, meant to those who received them at that Mass, and what the sacrament means to me as an LDS...the suffering and atoning sacrifice of the Lord, because He loved us so much. Whether LDS or Catholic, we, at that place and time, were remembering the love our Lord has for us and what He did for us because of that love.

Incense is not used at every Mass. The parish I go to never uses it. I go to another parish once in a while because I miss the incense, and Latin.

I have been to several Masses now and incense has not been used in any of the. A bell is wrung at certain points. I have a hard time following sometimes because, though most of the Mass is given in English, the priest inserts Tagalog (I'm in the Philippines now) in varying amounts during the service.

This I agree with and leave you with this scripture:

Remain in me, as I remain in you. Just as a branch cannot bear fruit on its own unless it remains on the vine, so neither can you unless you remain in me. (John 15,4)

If we remain in Him we will bring forth much fruit, unto the Father's glory!

[danhoward1]

There is nothing circular about it, and I am not begging the question. I am addressing the debate, which is, the Mormon position that God is neither infinite or eternal. You believe He is created. I understand you believe that creation is from existing material, which presents more problems (and I believe another topic).

Just to clear this up: LDS belief is that God is eternal, from everlasting to everlasting. In making a distinction between the eternal nature of the soul/intelligence, and the creation of bodies I do not think the LDS position is too far from what most other Christians say. Most Chrsitians believe that the soul continues past death, and that therefore there is an eternal part of man that survives past the created body. The big difference in LDS belief is that the soul extends backwards into the eternities as well as forwards. I do not think this breaks down under logic, but that it actually holds up better. As Joseph himself taught: anything that has a beginning must logically have an end.

I'll try and attend a sacrament meeting this Sunday or next and move from simply reading to finally experiencing.

I would also recommend finding some general conference talks to watch in the meantime. If you are trying to determine the truth of the LDS claim to prophets, you may as well listen to those we recognize as prophets. See if there is any spiritual witness to their words.

thanks, I'll definitely take that into consideration. I think the main thing when finding out what you truly believe and if it is the truth is to not only do research into the beliefs, history, etc. of the faith, but to also supplement it with sincere prayer. The ONE thing I'm not a huge fan of in LDS practice is when missionaries tell an investigator to read the Book of Mormon, and if they pray with a sincere heart, God will reveal to them that it is Truth. Now, I'm not saying whether the Book of Mormon is true or not, and from jeff lindsay's website, I can see some good claims for evidence in favor of it. I just think it's an interesting thing to ask an investigator, because you might think, "well, if I don't get a revelation that it is true, then maybe I'm not praying hard enough", or something to that effect. Obviously I believe that prayer is important and God does answer prayers and provide blessings, but I just don't like the way this is asked of an investigator. Maybe I'm just over analyzing

There are many reasons why one wouldn't get an immediate answer to a prayer. Among these I would say are the following: insincerety, lack of faith, lack of humility (I would say that the Moroni challenge handles this by telling you to remember how merciful God has been to men), failure to recognize the answer, not listening for an answer, trying to force an answer, over-reaching your bounds (i.e. asking to know when Christ's second coming will be), asking for knowledge you already have, asking for knowledge without doing anything to gain it, and God may just be further testing your faith (biding His time before giving the answer).

There may well be a good many other reasons, and the fact is in the vast majority of the above cases, the ball is in your court, though sometimes that is just beyond your knowledge.

In my case, I have two different Book of Mormon confirmation stories, some of the details of which I think it may be appropriate to share.

The first time I prayed, I didn't notice any answer...in fact I prayed a few times before I finally got my first one: it came as a thought that was clearly not my own. I really can't explain how I knew it wasn't mine, but I knew. The thought was simply the following phrase: Why do you continue asking a question to which you already know the answer? At this time I felt a subtle feeling of truth, and the remembrance that it was always there as I read the Book of Mormon (though I can't say I had ever noticed (or recognized) this feeling before then).

Thus I already knew...I just didn't know that I knew. This also demonstrated the need for persistence in faith, and the need to do a little work of your own (not that you haven't already). If I hadn't read the Book of Mormon, that feeling of truth could not have been called into remembrance. I would have gone even longer without recognizing the voice of the spirit.

The second time was the result of my deciding I wanted more...something I couldn't doubt when life got tough, so I essentially said I wouldn't get up from my knees till I got something more objective. I was showing faith, but I was being so stubborn about it that 1) I wasn't being very humble, and 2) I wasn't really listening for an answer so much as demanding one. It took me a good 5 minutes of waiting to realize this, and as soon as I did, and started listening I got the impression to start reading from the Book of Mormon, which I did, and what I sought came instantly (as soon as I started to read). I will say here that I didn't get what I was specifically asking for, I got what God had in mind for me, which was honestly more than I had thought to ask for.

...though I found that even more objective witnesses of truth may be doubted in the dark hours of life...

I wouldn't normally put this stuff out there...I tend to be private about this stuff...but I thought I might be able to share a little on the subject of prayer.

All I can say is stop worrying about if you have enough faith. Any time you put your faith in a position where it could be damaged, you have demonstrated a good deal of faith. Study, ponder, pray. You could toss a little fasting in the mix there too if you want, that tends to bring results.

I promise you, if you go to God, and ask for bread, He won't give you a stone...

[ed2276]

Interesting topic.

I suppose one of the main drawback I have with Mormonism (or any other restorationist type chruch) is that there is such a delay in time. Of what purpose would it be to God to wait hundreds (if not thousands) of years until he would restore his true church. I do not doubt there are some amazing things to learn within restoration type religions, but I fail to see the practicality of it on a variety of different levels. As I mentioned in other posts I was a Jehovah's Witness for about seven years, another group that teaches there was an apostasy and that they restored truth. Thinking that God had to wait two thousand years till the Watchtower showed up to restore truth appears quite absurd to me, and so applying this same logic to other groups proves quite difficult in my mind.

Of what purpose would it be for God to let the Jews teach false traditions for hundreds of years before Christ came to the Earth, corrected them, and restored the truth and established the NT church, and that through the use of prophets and apostles?

One thought that comes to me is that the time had not yet arrived for Christ to make His appearance, so of course He was not going to appear hundreds of years early to correct the Jews and set up the "Christian" church then. In His planned timetable, it wasn't time for Him to come in 600 b.c. , or any other time before He did,

The answer is the same with regard to your question about LDS claims. Why would He wait so long to restore His true gospel? Because the time had not yet arrived for the fulness of the times of the Gentiles to come in, and the other events preparatory to His coming. The Church was restored hundreds of years later because that is the time that the Lord had planned for it to be restored on His timeline.

[saemo]

Where did Christ's mortal body come from?

Incarnated.

"It is to be remembered that, when the Word took Flesh, there was no change in the Word; all the change was in the Flesh. At the moment of conception, in the womb of the Blessed Mother, through the forcefulness of God's activity, not only was the human soul of Christ created but the Word assumed the man that was conceived. When God created the world, the world was changed, that is. it passed from the state of nonentity to the state of existence; and there was no change in the Logos or Creative Word of God the Father. Nor was there change in that Logos when it began to terminate the human nature. A new relation ensued, to be sure; but this new relation implied in the Logos no new reality, no real change; all new reality, all real change, was in the humannature." (Catholic Encyclopedia)

I am puzzled why someone who was LDS doesn't understand this concept. It is the way we teach the concept of physical embodiment starting in the first years of Primary. The specific analogy is that the body is the glove that the spirit puts on (is clothed in) for mortality. (see http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne..._&hideNav=1 )

Oh yes, I remember that one. It has been a longgg time since I was a Mormon and even longer since I was in primary.

My memories of primary are mainly being taught things and I believed every word, because I was supposed to. But I never processed these things as an adult. Some of the more obscure things, like this, I've forgotten altogether. Until reminders come up, like what you posted.

This question is meaningless to LDS as the material or "matter" is uncreated or as LDS say "eternal".

This is nonesense to me. You are saying God was created. There isn't any way around that. Something that is created, is not eternal (or infinite).

But do you have an explanation as to why they have no idea? NonLDS in general tend to be very uneducated in actual LDS theology.

Because no nonLDS would ever consider that a religious organization has redefined so much. Every conversation I have had with a nonLDS Christian, about Mormonism, starts with definitions.

[Calm]

not only was the human soul of Christ created

So a part of Christ was created yet this did not change the fact that he himself was eternal, uncreated.

When God created the world, the world was changed, that is. it passed from the state of nonentity to the state of existence;

Since man was not in the state of nonentity prior to the creation of his spiritual and physical nature, then he does not qualify for being "created" but is uncreated by this description.

This is nonesense to me. You are saying God was created. There isn't any way around that. Something that is created, is not eternal (or infinite).

No, I am not. Perhaps it is because you see God as a being that is indivisible, if one part of Him is created that implies that all of Him is created. LDS do not view God in this way. He is eternal, uncreated in his fundamental nature but has had material---spiritual and physical--added to him as well as increasing in glory and other godly attributes.

Because no nonLDS would ever consider that a religious organization has redefined so much. Every conversation I have had with a nonLDS Christian, about Mormonism, starts with definitions.

So because nonLDS won't take the time to learn what 'language' LDS speak, it's somehow deception on the part of LDS when we try to explain it in terms we believe they'll understand?

[saemo]

So a part of Christ was created yet this did not change the fact that he himself was eternal, uncreated. Since man was not in the state of nonentity prior to the creation of his spiritual and physical nature, then he does not qualify for being "created" but is uncreated by this description.No, I am not. Perhaps it is because you see God as a being that is indivisible, if one part of Him is created that implies that all of Him is created. LDS do not view God in this way. He is eternal, uncreated in his fundamental nature but has had material---spiritual and physical--added to him as well as increasing in glory and other godly attributes.

So because nonLDS won't take the time to learn what 'language' LDS speak, it's somehow deception on the part of LDS when we try to explain it in terms we believe they'll understand?

Honestly calmoriah, you've lost me. Or I have lost the thread of what we're talking about. A lot on my mind, so not your fault.

You don't give them the time. One lesson, 2nd lesson commit to baptism, 4 lessons later done.

[thesometimesaint]

saemo:

Heck if after six lessons someone doesn't understand the basics. Maybe they need to do a little more study.

[saemo]

saemo:

Heck if after six lessons someone doesn't understand the basics. Maybe they need to do a little more study.

Probably, but also not a real possiblitly, as the missionaries who come to my door seem to understand less than I do. And I'm no scholar.

At any rate, probably another subject, and one where I would most likely offend people, so I'll just zipit.

[thesometimesaint]

saemo:

I would hope that after 37 years in the Church I would know more about it than some still wet behind the ears 19 year old Missionary.

My son went on a mission at 25, even he knew more than those 19 years from Utah.

[saemo]

saemo:

I would hope that after 37 years in the Church I would know more about it than some still wet behind the ears 19 year old Missionary.

My son went on a mission at 25, even he knew more than those 19 years from Utah.

ha. I'm not looking to convert, or revert, as it were.

I was thinking of missionaries in areas where people have no access to LDS materials and all they have are a couple of greenies. Seems like the blind leading the blind to me.

[thesometimesaint]

saemo:

My son served in Zimbabwe.

[Calm]

Probably, but also not a real possiblitly, as the missionaries who come to my door seem to understand less than I do. And I'm no scholar.

Easy enough to solve in most cases. Most missionaries will know or know of someone who knows a local ward member who enjoys these types of discussions and who would be willing to participate.

I'm sorry that I cannot communicate to your the LDS concept of God in such a way that it 'clicks' for you. Can you at least accept that for us---even if it doesn't seem logical to you---God the Father and God the Son are uncreated? Think of it as a mystery if it helps. I cannot personally fathom how God can be one being and three persons, but I accept this as a belief held by many, even most Christians even if it appears completely illogical to myself and I do not insist that they must accept my interpretation as reality. I would ask the same from you and hope that you will no longer claim that LDS believe that God is a created being.

[saemo]

Easy enough to solve in most cases. Most missionaries will know or know of someone who knows a local ward member who enjoys these types of discussions and who would be willing to participate.

OK.

I'm sorry that I cannot communicate to your the LDS concept of God in such a way that it 'clicks' for you. Can you at least accept that for us---even if it doesn't seem logical to you---God the Father and God the Son are uncreated? Think of it as a mystery if it helps. I cannot personally fathom how God can be one being and three persons, but I accept this as a belief held by many, even most Christians even if it appears completely illogical to myself and I do not insist that they must accept my interpretation as reality. I would ask the same from you and hope that you will no longer claim that LDS believe that God is a created being.

To be a Mystery it would need to be based on what God has revealed. And I don't see that.

And I don't understand a whole lot of other "stuff". But that is coming from another conversation I am having with a Mormon (not on this board) regarding the nature of God.

I am just going to let it lie, and go on wondering how you believe what you do.

Thanks for the dialogue.