Which Trinity ?

[MiserereNobis]

So someone in the Magisterium says something, or perhaps the whole Magiserium collectively say something, and then what?

Well, just to clarify, there are various levels of the Magisterium that require various levels of assent. The highest is probably the easiest to talk about, which is when something is declared a dogma by the Pope, speaking ex cathedra, or by an Ecumenical Council that has been ratified by the Pope. That has the mark of infallibility on it.

Are you supposed to just believe it based on your own belief that what they are saying is true? How do you arrive at that belief?

You are supposed to assent to it with your intellect. The process for this I'm sure varies for individuals. Some probably have enough faith in the Church already so that faith can flow over to a proclamation by the Church. Some probably have to struggle to arrive at a point of assent.

What or who is it that leads you to believe what they say?

For me, personally, it works a lot like a line a Mormon told me (sorry if I get it wrong): line upon line, precept upon precept. I have used my reason and intellect and I have prayed and I have fasted and I have done penance. I study and think. I pray some more. And somewhere in that process I ultimately make a choice to believe.

For us, or at least me and the many others who I know agree with me, we take what our Church leaders tell us as an idea that we can then ask God about, with God being the one (or 3) to tell us whether or not that idea is true, with him sometimes going into more detail to explain how it is true, even so far that we can use common sense to explain it to others.

Perhaps we are using different words to describe a similar event. However, for me, it is not a one time prayer that lets me know something is from God. It is a process that involves lots of factors, prayer being one. But I never come to absolute certainty -- I make a choice and I have faith. I pray: "Lord, I believe! Help thou mine unbelief."

From there it's just a matter of everyone else getting confirmation from God so they can also know what is true, and we fully expect everyone who agrees with God to also agree with us, eventually.

This is reasonable, though again I would add that God requires more of us than just a simple asking, and ultimately He requires a choice to be made.

Of course, you and I disagree as to what information is coming from God

[Ahab]

Perhaps we are using different words to describe a similar event. However, for me, it is not a one time prayer that lets me know something is from God. It is a process that involves lots of factors, prayer being one.

It's not necessarily just a one time prayer for me, either, although it can sometimes come very quickly. Prayer is simply a converstation with God, with God doing some of the talking while I listen to him. It's an ongoing thing, and I usually have a prayer in my heart all day, daily.

But I never come to absolute certainty -- I make a choice and I have faith. I pray: "Lord, I believe! Help thou mine unbelief."

That's a big difference, because I do, sometimes, and then there are times when I'm only pretty sure instead of absolutely sure, at least at first, although that "pretty sure" can grow to become an "absolutely sure" eventually.

Faith is about being sure, you know, with God giving you his assurance. What more do you need from him to believe him?

This is reasonable, though again I would add that God requires more of us than just a simple asking, and ultimately He requires a choice to be made.

A simple asking works, if we really want to know, though. Ask and we shall receive is what our Lord tells us. It has to come from the heart as part of an ongoing conversation, though. If you don't believe in God and just blurt out a question in a moment of frustration asking if he's out there you're likely not doing all you need to do to get an answer from him.

Of course, you and I disagree as to what information is coming from God

Yes, but I do see that you're coming at least part of the way when I can see you agree on some principles.

I expect that as you keep learning from God you'll keep learning more and more, eventually agreeing with us if you stick with it that far.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Ahab

[MiserereNobis]

Faith is about being sure, you know, with God giving you his assurance. What more do you need from him to believe him?

I disagree here quite a bit. Faith is not about certainty. Faith is about faith, which is hope and trust, not certainty. Jesus points out over and over again how those who hope and trust in Him have faith.

Yes, but I do see that you're coming at least part of the way when I can see you agree on some principles.

I expect that as you keep learning from God you'll keep learning more and more, eventually agreeing with us if you stick with it that far.

This is rather condescending, Ahab. Yes, you and I agree on some principles, because we both come from a Christian tradition. However, my religious beliefs haven't changed at all because of chatting on this board.

Perhaps if you stick with truth that far you'll become Catholic

[Ahab]

I disagree here quite a bit. Faith is not about certainty. Faith is about faith, which is hope and trust, not certainty. Jesus points out over and over again how those who hope and trust in Him have faith.

Look in a common dictionary. Faith is all about being sure of something, so when someone says I have faith that... they are basically saying I am sure that... which is evidenced by their actions which result from them being sure about that. Faith doesn't necessarily come from God, though, because anyone can say they're sure about all kinds of things which God never gave his assurance about.

And, sure, those who "trust" in our Lord have some kind of assurance in him, otherwise they would not trust him.

This is rather condescending, Ahab. Yes, you and I agree on some principles, because we both come from a Christian tradition. However, my religious beliefs haven't changed at all because of chatting on this board.

My faith is based on what God has told me, regardless of any traditions. No need to flip out because I express my faith that all roads to God will also lead to us LDS. God is with us, and we are being led by him now... so, naturally, if you keep learning truth from God you'll learn the truth about us LDS because he is teaching us what we're teaching.

Perhaps if you stick with truth that far you'll become Catholic

There you go. That's the type of statement I would expect to hear from someone with faith in the Catholic church.

Now it's just a matter of finding out how much of the teachings of the Catholic church are coming from God, and which are coming from someplace else.

[mfbukowski]

The statement does not say that the faithful are always infallible -- nice straw man

Notice that the Magisterium is invoked in the article, which specifically and rightly points out that the sensum fidelium is not a democratic approach to doctrine, but is under the guidance of the Magisterium, whose role is only infallible at very specific and certain instances (such as Pope Pius IX declaration of the Immaculate Conception).

However, based on the tone of your one line sarcastic response, I find it less likely that you were truly interested in trying to understand this. My apologies if I am mistaken in this assumption, but that is how it appears.

Uh huh.

Let's just say I was just as sincere as you were.

So the LDS membership gets to vote to determine what God commands? Please explain.....

[MiserereNobis]

Uh huh.

Let's just say I was just as sincere as you were.

I asked a sincere question, mfb. I was told that the Word of Wisdom was made binding upon the LDS church because the church membership voted on it. So I restated what had been said and asked for clarification. You must have missed the context of my question and read sarcasm into it. There was none.

[mfbukowski]

I asked a sincere question, mfb. I was told that the Word of Wisdom was made binding upon the LDS church because the church membership voted on it. So I restated what had been said and asked for clarification. You must have missed the context of my question and read sarcasm into it. There was none.

And my point was that this is indeed a process similar to how sensus fidelium works in the Catholic Church.

It's not that we "vote" on it- it is that by raising our hands we ratify the newly issued doctrine and thereby assent and sustain it as a rule or doctrine for us individually, after praying about it and deciding that we will accept it.

It's more like saying "Everyone who accepts this doctrine and agrees to live by it, raise your arms to the square". Another analogy would be drawing a line in the sand and saying "Everyone who is on my side, step over this line"

It represents a concrete action on our part which signifies our acceptance of what the Brethren have already determined will be doctrine.

We call that "sustaining" the doctrine or the newly proposed leader. In each case, we signify (a very important word) our assent to what is proposed, or if necessary, our dissent.

Those who do not sustain the person/doctrine will be interviewed later to see what their objection is- in the case of a leader, if they have information about malfeasance or inappropriate conduct which no one else has, it could result in the proposed individual not being put into the proposed position. In the case of a non-sustaining of a doctrine, perhaps the individual needs further explanation etc.

Edited September 27, 2012 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

And my point was that this is indeed a process similar to how sensus fidelium works in the Catholic Church.

It's not that we "vote" on it- it is that by raising our hands we ratify the newly issued doctrine and thereby assent and sustain it as a rule or doctrine for us individually, after praying about it and deciding that we will accept it.

It's more like saying "Everyone who accepts this doctrine and agrees to live by it, raise your arms to the square". Another analogy would be drawing a line in the sand and saying "Everyone who is on my side, step over this line"

It represents a concrete action on our part which signifies our acceptance of what the Brethren have already determined will be doctrine.

We call that "sustaining" the doctrine or the newly proposed leader. In each case, we signify (a very important word) our assent to what is proposed, or if necessary, our dissent.

Those who do not sustain the person/doctrine will be interviewed later to see what their objection is- in the case of a leader, if they have information about malfeasance or inappropriate conduct which no one else has, it could result in the proposed individual not being put into the proposed position. In the case of a non-sustaining of a doctrine, perhaps the individual needs further explanation etc.

If someone disagrees with the doctrine or disagrees to live by it, then are they still bound to it? For example, if a moral law is offered for ratification and a member does not ratify it will they still be held accountable for living it? The reason I ask is because the impression I got from the original post/thread (wherever that may be) was that the poster (Vance?) said that the word of wisdom became binding on the LDS church because the membership chose to make it binding. Perhaps his wording was imprecise or I misunderstood (that's why I asked about voting on commandments).

The way you describe here makes it sound like it is a ritual, if I may use that word, wherein LDS members actively give assent to a doctrine/commandment. Being a Catholic, I find rituals to be most helpful to the spiritual life -- we do something concrete and physical to represent/signify something spiritual. Is this one way of understanding the ratification of doctrines?

[TruthSeeker24]

If someone disagrees with the doctrine or disagrees to live by it, then are they still bound to it? For example, if a moral law is offered for ratification and a member does not ratify it will they still be held accountable for living it? The reason I ask is because the impression I got from the original post/thread (wherever that may be) was that the poster (Vance?) said that the word of wisdom became binding on the LDS church because the membership chose to make it binding. Perhaps his wording was imprecise or I misunderstood (that's why I asked about voting on commandments).

The way you describe here makes it sound like it is a ritual, if I may use that word, wherein LDS members actively give assent to a doctrine/commandment. Being a Catholic, I find rituals to be most helpful to the spiritual life -- we do something concrete and physical to represent/signify something spiritual. Is this one way of understanding the ratification of doctrines?

I very much agree with what MiserereNobis is getting at. If God gives a law, and we vote to not live by it, then I fear for our salvation; I really do. I view it like this, and I'm sure people will disagree with me, but this is the only way I can make sense of things. The Church is a democracy, and has the right of vote to uphold either people, rules, commandments, and laws. Then the Priesthood is a Theocracy, and runs directly under God and cannot be voted upon. So one the Church President gets a revelation from God stating to do some "eternal" law, then the Church votes on it. And if the Church members vote against the law, then their in for a heap of trouble. But they do have the right to that vote under the Church, as its a democracy. I never once viewed the Church and the Priesthood as the same, and I think there's enough evidence in Church history to support my view on that.

[mfbukowski]

If someone disagrees with the doctrine or disagrees to live by it, then are they still bound to it? For example, if a moral law is offered for ratification and a member does not ratify it will they still be held accountable for living it? The reason I ask is because the impression I got from the original post/thread (wherever that may be) was that the poster (Vance?) said that the word of wisdom became binding on the LDS church because the membership chose to make it binding. Perhaps his wording was imprecise or I misunderstood (that's why I asked about voting on commandments).

Of course- one is not "bound" by anything the church teaches. We have agency. Either we accept it or not and stay in the church or not. You often bemoan that we have no "doctrine" and yet you ask this question? Haven't you been listening when we tell you that we must get our own testimonies (ie: revelations) in each case? Did you think we were kidding?

The door is always open- if you don't believe what a church teaches- you leave. That's why I left Catholicism- I was not "bound" by it- either one believes or doesn't- and there's the door. If you don't believe it, you shouldn't be here- you are just taking up space.

The way you describe here makes it sound like it is a ritual, if I may use that word, wherein LDS members actively give assent to a doctrine/commandment. Being a Catholic, I find rituals to be most helpful to the spiritual life -- we do something concrete and physical to represent/signify something spiritual. Is this one way of understanding the ratification of doctrines?

It is a kind of ritual in many cases, especially the sustaining of officers in conference which you will be able to see live in in our general conference next week- or play a tape now if you like. I am sure someone will make a link for you to a sustaining.

But it is also a real choice each time.

Everytime I go through the "ritual" it flickers through my mind- "Do I actually agree with these people being in their positions and all that represents?"

And everytime- so far- the answer has been "yes".

Sometime it might not be- but so far so good!

[mfbukowski]

I very much agree with what MiserereNobis is getting at. If God gives a law, and we vote to not live by it, then I fear for our salvation; I really do. I view it like this, and I'm sure people will disagree with me, but this is the only way I can make sense of things. The Church is a democracy, and has the right of vote to uphold either people, rules, commandments, and laws. Then the Priesthood is a Theocracy, and runs directly under God and cannot be voted upon. So one the Church President gets a revelation from God stating to do some "eternal" law, then the Church votes on it. And if the Church members vote against the law, then their in for a heap of trouble. But they do have the right to that vote under the Church, as its a democracy. I never once viewed the Church and the Priesthood as the same, and I think there's enough evidence in Church history to support my view on that.

You are not LDS and the church is NOT a "democracy" by any stretch.

You do not understand our doctrine and should not be commenting on it as if you are LDS.

Miserere- it would be like asking a follower of Father Feeney about Catholic doctrine, without him disclosing his beliefs

[MiserereNobis]

Of course- one is not "bound" by anything the church teaches. We have agency. Either we accept it or not and stay in the church or not. You often bemoan that we have no "doctrine" and yet you ask this question? Haven't you been listening when we tell you that we must get our own testimonies (ie: revelations) in each case? Did you think we were kidding?

No, I didn't think you were kidding, but maybe I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around how far/deep the idea of testimony goes in the LDS church. Perhaps I figured that once one has a testimony of Joseph Smith, the church being true, etc, then one then accepts what the church is now teaching/doing. I didn't realize one has to get a testimony for every single instance.

In my Catholic faith, there are some things that I trust or actively choose to believe despite not truly knowing or even passively believing. I do this because there are other, foundational parts of my faith that I know that support those that I do not know. I find it integral to my faith to have to actively choose faith in some areas. But I'm speaking of my own personal experiences.

Oh, also, I think there was misunderstanding on the use of the word "bound." I didn't mean that one doesn't have free will.

And yes, I bemoan the lack of doctrine, but I guess that's because I am in a doctrinal church. We place great emphasis on doctrine, obviously.

It is a kind of ritual in many cases, especially the sustaining of officers in conference which you will be able to see live in in our general conference next week- or play a tape now if you like. I am sure someone will make a link for you to a sustaining.

But it is also a real choice each time.

Everytime I go through the "ritual" it flickers through my mind- "Do I actually agree with these people being in their positions and all that represents?"

And everytime- so far- the answer has been "yes".

Sometime it might not be- but so far so good!

Well, if at some point the answer is "no," hit me up and I'll see if I can get you back to the Catholic Church

[MiserereNobis]

You are not LDS and the church is NOT a "democracy" by any stretch.

You do not understand our doctrine and should not be commenting on it as if you are LDS.

Miserere- it would be like asking a follower of Father Feeney about Catholic doctrine, without him disclosing his beliefs

Thanks for the clarification.

[mfbukowski]

No, I didn't think you were kidding, but maybe I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around how far/deep the idea of testimony goes in the LDS church. Perhaps I figured that once one has a testimony of Joseph Smith, the church being true, etc, then one then accepts what the church is now teaching/doing. I didn't realize one has to get a testimony for every single instance.

The only instances that matter are ones which generate doubt- so I understand what you mean, but on the other hand, we should seek our own answers for such things and should either receive the answers we seek, accept it without confirmation, or simply decide to leave.

Joseph taught the following in this regard:

7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.

8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought...

http://www.lds.org/s...dc/9.8?lang=eng

And of course this meshes with Joseph's entire approach for revelation which derives from this:

5If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. 7For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. 8A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

James1

We underline the "ANY" and think this applies to anyone on any doctrine.

Edited September 28, 2012 by mfbukowski

[followerofemmanuel]

I am no apologetic but I do believe in the Trinity doctrine.  I admit there have been times that I have questioned this doctrine and spent periods of time confused.  I think it is very important to understand the nature of God and whom you follow, because there are many paths that lead in very different directions led by a "god".  When how you spend eternity and how you live this life are all based on your belief of God, it should be a topic we prayerfully seek out earnestly.  I am completely comfortable at peace with the Trinity doctrine now.  It helps me to make sense of scripture that points to oneness when there is clearly different reference of beings.  I think of the egg analogy....the shell, the yolk, the egg white.  They all make up the egg and are the egg but there are times we only see the egg white, or shell or yolk....but if you were to ask what it is..it's part of an egg.  There is mystery too...God's ways are much higher than ours so I have come to a place where I don't expect to be able to define God perfectly but I do seek to know Him as he has revealed himself.   It's a journey for me.  Never a debate.  Definitely a conversation with other like minded individuals who seek after God. I like to surround myself with people who seek honestly after God, without mocking someone's belief's in pursuit of truth because I really believe we have knowledge and understanding to help one another out. Thanks why I like hanging around you LDS folks

Edited November 9, 2013 by followerofemmanuel