Is There Not An Apparent Problem To The Doctrine Of The Trinity?

[Darren10]

Hi Storm,

 

Did this Godhead exist when a certain man (the future Heavenly Father of Earth) was

married to his wife (the future Heavenly Mother) on some other planet before they had

their first spirit child whom they would call Jesus?

 

The Lectures on Faith (which was part of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants and guided

the Latter-day Saints until it was removed in 1921) teaches that there are two personages

in the Godhead. When did the Holy Spirit become the third personage in the Godhead?

 

Thanks,

Jim

Regarding the "future Heavenly Father of Earth" and this "future Heavenly Father" marrying...what are you talking about?

It's interesting that such doctrines are more ardently believed and preached by critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints pertaining to "what Mormons believe" than do believing Mormons.

[Darren10]

What time was it just before the Big Bang?  Was it a Thursday?

It was Tuesday, didn't you get the memo from Salt Lake?

[DarkScythe]

no no no no, it was last thursday, for The only true religion is the Last Thursdayism. Anything past last Thursday, is a lie, made Satan.

[Storm Rider]

Based on what evidence?

 

At one time they accepted LDS baptisms and then they stopped. When the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith accepted LDS baptisms were they ignorant of LDS doctrines? Why change midstream? Thus, it is my opinion that it is a bit of you reject mine so I reject yours. Don't read too much into it; I am not advocating it is the exclusive reason, just that it played a role.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Storm Rider

[Storm Rider]

Modalism is not a teaching of the Orthodox and Catholic traditions. Though there are some who have messed this up. Modalism, Arianism, Pelagianism, Marcionism, Gnosticism and Calvinism are among the most dangerous of heresies. I'm not willing to place my salvation at risk for any of the above even to the slightest degree.

 

Val, things have change chez-toi. Do you believe that Jesus' atonement is incapable of saving an individual that does not have a strict belief and understanding of the Trinity?  Not to mess up the thread, but did knowledge being the saving power rather than Jesus? This is one of the most offensive teachings to me in all of orthodoxy; if you do not believe like me you are damned or that knowledge of specific doctrines saves and Jesus' cross and resurrection are for naught or at least not enough. 

[Ran]

At one time they accepted LDS baptisms and then they stopped. When the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith accepted LDS baptisms were they ignorant of LDS doctrines? Why change midstream? Thus, it is my opinion that it is a bit of you reject mine so I reject yours. Don't read too much into it; I am not advocating it is the exclusive reason, just that it played a role.

 

 

You may be referring to:

 

• RESPONSE TO A 'DUBIUM' on the validity of baptism conferred by «The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints», called «Mormons» (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 2001)

 

• Response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith about the Validity of Baptism Conferred in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Urbano Navarrete, S.J. 2001)

 

• The Question of the Validity of Baptism Conferred in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Luis Ladaria 2001).

[Storm Rider]

Hi Storm,

 

Did this Godhead exist when a certain man (the future Heavenly Father of Earth) was

married to his wife (the future Heavenly Mother) on some other planet before they had

their first spirit child whom they would call Jesus?

 

The Lectures on Faith (which was part of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants and guided

the Latter-day Saints until it was removed in 1921) teaches that there are two personages

in the Godhead. When did the Holy Spirit become the third personage in the Godhead?

 

Thanks,

Jim

Jim, you are barking up the wrong tree for me. I don't believe anything similar or reflective of that which you have described and never have. I have read all of scripture countless times and I find nothing of significant value that would lead any individual to believe such. It is pretty clear that I believe that the Godhead has always been the Godhead. I am willing to learn otherwise, but God has deemed it necessary to clarify anymore than what we have. 

 

As an aside, I really do try to be a student of truth first and a Latter-day Saint second. My membership in the Church of Jesus Christ indicates that I believe many things, but I am not a slave of Church history or of past prophets.  I have one doctrine and it is found in scripture and by confirmation of the Holy Spirit. My objective is to learn truth wherever it is found. 

[Storm Rider]

 

You may be referring to:

 

• RESPONSE TO A 'DUBIUM' on the validity of baptism conferred by «The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints», called «Mormons» (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 2001)

 

• Response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith about the Validity of Baptism Conferred in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Urbano Navarrete, S.J. 2001)

 

• The Question of the Validity of Baptism Conferred in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Luis Ladaria 2001).

 

 Yes, and that last one in particular is complete gobbledygook and prevarication. 

 

The Church of Jesus Christ baptizes because Jesus stated we must. The intention of each baptism is to fulfill all righteousness; to seal the name of Christ on the heart and soul, and to enter into the Kingdom of God on earth. The very reasons we baptize are in keeping with the Catholic Church's position for centuries.  If find it disingenuous that the CC was ignorant of the Church since 1830 and then all of sudden recognized its presence in the 1990s.  

 

When I reread these documents again it confirms my initial position.  It is not a big deal, just a personal opinion. 

[Ran]

Revelation, personal revelation, is the prophetic reality of each disciple of Jesus.  That revelation should never be hindered by creeds. I do think that creeds can be the beginning of learning doctrinal positions, but they are not the only tool or even the preferred tool. To me it is similar to set prayers; they are good to provide words to communicate with those young in the Spirit or unsure of praying. However, prayer that comes from the heart is and will remain an open conversation with our Father in Heaven and our God.  Words created by another may be beautiful and worth contemplating, but better is the individual that approaches God with open heart, mind, and spirit in humble prayer.

 

I don't think I have done a good job of explaining why creeds are so limiting and determined by the Church of Jesus Christ to be rejected. I will need to do some more research.  Thank you for your question. 

 

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

 

Do creeds pose a hindrance to revelation? It's not clear to me that that's inevitable. Whether it is a risk or a high risk, is something I'll have to think about.

 

The roots of the "Apostles Creed," for example, started off as baptismal professions of faith: "Do you believe in God the Father Almighty?" "I believe [Credo]." <Immersion>. "Do you believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God?" "I believe [Credo]." <Immersion> "Do you believe in the Holy Spirit?" "I believe [Credo]." < Immersion>. Edit: I got this from Ratzinger's Introduction to Christianity, p. 83.

 

It seems to me that if faith and baptism — which both derive from revelation — are juxtaposed, then a creed-"credo"-"I believe" statement/act of some sort is fitting and doesn't have to be an obstacle to the very revelation that it's affirming.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Ran

[Ran]

 Yes, and that last one in particular is complete gobbledygook and prevarication. 

 

The Church of Jesus Christ baptizes because Jesus stated we must. The intention of each baptism is to fulfill all righteousness; to seal the name of Christ on the heart and soul, and to enter into the Kingdom of God on earth. The very reasons we baptize are in keeping with the Catholic Church's position for centuries.  If find it disingenuous that the CC was ignorant of the Church since 1830 and then all of sudden recognized its presence in the 1990s.  

 

When I reread these documents again it confirms my initial position.  It is not a big deal, just a personal opinion. 

 

Apparently, "there had been a pastoral and administrative practice on the part of the Catholic Church that was not clear and uniform" with regards to the question of the validity of LDS baptism as it pertains to issues like mixed marriages, etc (Navarrete) and so the bishops wanted an answer.

[mfbukowski]

It was Tuesday, didn't you get the memo from Salt Lake?

Well for sure we know it was April 6th.

But I couldn't find a calendar that old - I looked for an hour in my basement.  Those stone ones were too heavy to move, but the pictures were pretty cool.

[mfbukowski]

no no no no, it was last thursday, for The only true religion is the Last Thursdayism. Anything past last Thursday, is a lie, made Satan.

Cheesh another new earther. But since we are brains in a vat who really knows?

[Darren10]

Yes, and that last one in particular is complete gobbledygook and prevarication. 

 

The Church of Jesus Christ baptizes because Jesus stated we must. The intention of each baptism is to fulfill all righteousness; to seal the name of Christ on the heart and soul, and to enter into the Kingdom of God on earth. The very reasons we baptize are in keeping with the Catholic Church's position for centuries.  If find it disingenuous that the CC was ignorant of the Church since 1830 and then all of sudden recognized its presence in the 1990s.  

 

When I reread these documents again it confirms my initial position.  It is not a big deal, just a personal opinion.

I thought the Catholic Church no longer acknowledged LDS baptism as of 2001 or so. The LDS rejection of the Holy Trinity is a significant reason foe that rejection. And, yes, I too find it very hard to believe that the Catholic Church did not know of the LDS rejection of the historical Holy Trinity until then. The LDS have rejected the trinitarian creeds since the First Vision.

[3DOP]

I thought the Catholic Church no longer acknowledged LDS baptism as of 2001 or so. The LDS rejection of the Holy Trinity is a significant reason foe that rejection. And, yes, I too find it very hard to believe that the Catholic Church did not know of the LDS rejection of the historical Holy Trinity until then. The LDS have rejected the trinitarian creeds since the First Vision.

 

It has been speculated that the Catholic rejection of LDS baptisms in 2001, results at least in part from an emotional response to LDS rejection of Catholic baptisms. In support of this view, you and Storm Rider both find it "very hard to believe that the Catholic Church did not know of the rejection of the Holy Trinity until then".

 

But if the Catholic Church was understanding of the the LDS view of the Trinity at the time of the First Vision as you seem to think, surely it knew that you rebaptized converts from Catholicism. You are suggesting then that the the Catholic Church in the mid 1800's, under Pope Pius IX was more tolerant than that in the 1990's under Pope John Paul II? Many if not most Priotestants rebaptize converts from Catholicism and there has never been any emotional response against them. The entire history of the Church argues against an emotional response even when it comes to people who seem to be outright enemies of the Church. I find the explanation given in one of the documents more credible, than to think that the Catholic Church in 2001, became "all of a sudden" spiteful.

 

"Precisely because of the necessity of Baptism for salvation the Catholic Church has had the tendency of broadly recognizing this right intention in the conferring of this sacrament, even in the case of a false understanding of Trinitarian faith, as for example in the case of the Arians. Precisely because of the necessity of Baptism for salvation the Catholic Church has had the tendency of broadly recognizing this right intention in the conferring of this sacrament, even in the case of a false understanding of Trinitarian faith, as for example in the case of the Arians.

 

Taking into account this deeply-rooted practice of the Church, applied without any doubt as to the multiplicity of non-Catholic Christian communities emerging from the so-called Reform of the 16th century, it is easily understood that when there appeared in the United States the religious movement of Joseph Smith around 1830, in which the matter and the words of the form of Baptism were correctly utilized, this Baptism was considered valid, analogously to the Baptism of so many other non-Catholic ecclesial communities. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, according to their teaching, received the priesthood of Aaron in 1829. Given the circumstances of the Church in the United States in the 19th century and the means of social communication at that time, even though the new religious movement gained a considerable number of followers, the knowledge that ecclesiastical authorities could have had of the doctrinal errors that were professed in this new group was necessarily very limited throughout the entire century."

[Darren10]

3DOP;

 

If that's not part of the official declaration regarding why the Catholic Church rejects LDS baptism, it's very similarto it so far as I can remember from reading it. There's more to the story than the Holy Trinity and I still find it very difficult to belie that the Catholic Church did not know the LDS rejected the Holy Trinity until around 2001.

 

And as for me, I take the Catholic Church at their word. They reject LDS baptism for doctrinal errors they find in Mormon heology.

 

I'll see if I can dig up the official statement when I have time. It is always good dialoguing with you.

[saemo]

The story I got from clergy in SLC, is that conditional baptisms were the norm in Utah for Mormon converts. Most other places rarely, if ever, had a convert from Mormonism.

Then a Bishop in Idaho, having Mormon converts, asked the Bishop of SLC if LDS had a valid baptism. He was not satisfied with the conditional baptism. The reason for this is that the Sacrament of Baptism is taken very seriously. It is important to not rebaptize someone who has a valid baptism, as it is to baptize someone who has not had a valid baptism. Not being satisfied with a conditional baptism, he took the question of the validity of Mormon baptisms to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, who entered the question with the Roman Curia. Ten years later, the response came back, that a LDS baptism is not valid. This changed the practice of conditional baptism to a necessary baptism.

I have not met a LDS convert, who in light of Catholic doctrine vs Mormon doctrine, believed their LDS baptism to be valid.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

3DOP;

 

If that's not part of the official declaration regarding why the Catholic Church rejects LDS baptism, it's very similarto it so far as I can remember from reading it. There's more to the story than the Holy Trinity and I still find it very difficult to belie that the Catholic Church did not know the LDS rejected the Holy Trinity until around 2001.

 

And as for me, I take the Catholic Church at their word. They reject LDS baptism for doctrinal errors they find in Mormon heology.

 

I'll see if I can dig up the official statement when I have time. It is always good dialoguing with you.

Not sure it really matters either way. I mean, if they do great, doesn't matter to me. If they don't, well they are just like us as we don't recognize anyone else' baptism.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

strange dupe.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Yirgacheffe]

 " I find it disingenuous that the CC was ignorant of the Church since 1830 and then all of sudden recognized its presence in the 1990s."

 

 

Why?  Why should the Catholic church or any other be aware of the beliefs of every other church.  Seems to me they assumed for a while that beliefs were the same and then examined them, if it was only tit4tat then they wouldn't have accepted LDS baptisms from the start.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Yirgacheffe

[Yirgacheffe]

The story I got from clergy in SLC, is that conditional baptisms were the norm in Utah for Mormon converts. Most other places rarely, if ever, had a convert from Mormonism.

Then a Bishop in Idaho, having Mormon converts, asked the Bishop of SLC if LDS had a valid baptism. He was not satisfied with the conditional baptism. The reason for this is that the Sacrament of Baptism is taken very seriously. It is important to not rebaptize someone who has a valid baptism, as it is to baptize someone who has not had a valid baptism. Not being satisfied with a conditional baptism, he took the question of the validity of Mormon baptisms to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, who entered the question with the Roman Curia. Ten years later, the response came back, that a LDS baptism is not valid. This changed the practice of conditional baptism to a necessary baptism.

I have not met a LDS convert, who in light of Catholic doctrine vs Mormon doctrine, believed their LDS baptism to be valid.

Ten years, wow that's a long time to think about it.

[pogi]

Thanks 3DOP for your response!

Is there any hope at all (from a catholic perspective) for a Mormon who dies without a recognized Catholic baptism?

I find immense peace and assurance in the revealed doctrines of baptism for the dead for all mankind.  I can think of no more charitable act than to perform these temple ordinances for another.  These ordinances testify to me that God truly is no respecter of persons and His grace is made evident in the temples.

That would be an almost impossible pill for me to swallow if I was investigating the Catholic church to find out that my family and friends and ancestors have no hope in the next life as they received no baptism in this life.  How would you respond to a Mormon investigating the Catholic Church who had this question?

While Mormon's reject the Catholic baptism, the door is not closed for them.  Is there any similar hope from a Catholic perspective?

Edited April 24, 2014 by pogi

[Darren10]

I found the "declaration" I previously mentioned regarding the Catholic Church's rejection of LDS baptisms though it looks as if this was an opinion piece and possibly not from an official representative ofthe Catholic Church.

 

Regarding the "tit4tat" response, which I don't endorse myself, here's this:

 

 

A) According to the Catholic Church, Baptism cancels not only personal sins but also original sin, and therefore even infants are baptized for the remission of sins (cf. the essential texts of the Council of Trent, DH 1513-1515). This remission of original sin is not accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which denies the existence of this sin and therefore baptizes only persons who have the use of reason and are at least eight years old, excluding the mentally handicapped (cf. AF, pp. 113-116). In fact, the practice of the Catholic Church in conferring Baptism on infants is one of the main reasons for which the Mormons say that the Catholic Church apostatized in the first centuries, so that the sacraments celebrated by it are all invalid.

 

Though that may be a simple assurance that the Catholic decision is NOT a radical attack on Mormon theology.

 

I the end I do hope this is not the official position of the Catholci Church because the sources cited t odeclare "what Mormons believe" are terrible and only partically correct.

 

http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/mormbap1.htm

Edited April 24, 2014 by Darren10

[pogi]

3DOP 

I don't see a continuing controversy coming to a gradual resolution. I don't see much evidence that the faithful were considering the ideas credited to Arius before Arius proposed them. I think these ideas were new and they set off a storm.    

 

On the other hand, there is not much evidence that the faithful were considering the ideas credited to the council of Nicea before the council began either.  It is at least accurate to say that the Arian ideas are more ancient than the Nicean creed. 

 

This is from wikipedia:

Controversy over Arianism arose in the late 3rd century and persisted throughout most of the 4th century. It involved most church members—from simple believers, priests and monks to bishops, emperors and members of Rome's imperial family. Such a deep controversy within the Church during this period of its development could not have materialized without significant historical influences providing a basis for the Arian doctrines. Some historians define and minimize the Arian conflict as the exclusive construct of Arius and a handful of rogue bishops engaging in heresy; but others recognize Arius as a defender of 'original' Christianity, or as providing a conservative response against the politicization of Christianity seeking union with the Roman Empire.

 

 

3DOP

I suppose it is believed/assumed by some Catholics that the Apostles understood this while Christ was still alive. I don't think such a position is tenable. I don't think the Apostles understood it then or after His Resurrection. I don't think St. Peter ever knew all of the implications of the revelation given directly to Him about being the Rock either. Of course the Apostles were given the revelations which we think lead to conclusions that often don't come for hundreds or even more than a thousand years. So no. I do not believe the Apostles knew everything that the Catholic Church has subsequently defined, including the Council of Nicea.   

 

That is an interesting perspective.  Are you suggesting that it is possible that the original Apostles understanding of the Godhead may have been similar to LDS or Arius' theological views.  The nature of God seems like a critical element of worship to me (It certainly is for Catholics today, why not back then?) that the Apostles of Christ surely understood.  What did they think of when they thought of God?  Who, or what exactly did they pray to?  Surely their God was not dissimilar to the Jewish idea of God.  Their writings have the sense to me that they knew what they were talking about.  They do not come off as mysterious and ill-understood revelations on the nature of God that they wrote without knowing what it really meant.

 

3DOP

They certainly held that God is Three and God is One. The Baptismal formula. I don't see any evidence that this apparent problem (Three and One) required resolution before the Arian heresy.

 

I don't see any evidence that it was a problem at all for them (just like it is not for the LDS).  They certainly did not seem concerned by it.  There was no early controversy or question on the matter.  There was no need to create new terminology to define their beliefs or explain it to new converts.  It appears to be simply understood by all who professed Christianity at that time.  If the nature of God (the very core and center of their worship) was not understood, it seems like there would have been more question and controversy over that matter than over matters as simple as circumcision.  A slight deviation from tradition always created great question and controversy.  That did not seem to be present with the nature of God.  Why not?  Did they not view this as more significant an issue than circumcision?  The Catholics of today certainly do.  So much so that the LDS baptism is disqualified due to our belief in the nature of the Godhead. 

 

 

Its more important to believe than it is to understand anyway. Understanding is good, but we can't demand it. The truths of supernatural revelation are inaccessible to reason anyway. Since we only believe them on authority, why should we expect to also understand? Now God is His goodness, gives understanding too sometimes. There should be a healthy tension between belief and understanding. Without some understanding we become intellectually bored, but if we have too much understanding, if we have it all figured out, we can get proud. It honors a Father when His children believe Him not because He explains Himself, but just because he says so.

 

In any event, historically, it seems to me that different benign ways of resolving the problem, while not necessarily accurate, were permissible in the beginning. Arius' doctrine was impermissible.       

 

I think you make some good points here.  However, as true as it may be that it is better to believe (due to spiritual impressions) than to understand.  I wouldn't expect all early Christians to live according to that mantra.  They were not afraid to create controversy or raise questions over things they did not understand, and the Apostles did not shy away from such questions and controversy.  They did their best to explain to the understanding of the lowest of the saints.  It just seems so strange that there was no controversy or question over the nature of God from the writings of the Apostles...no concern from new converts over who or what they were worshipping.  It really seems like it was well understood and accepted.  

 

I hope I am not coming off as too adversarial, I just like some healthy dialogue and am interested in your perspective.  I like your responses. 

Edited April 24, 2014 by pogi

[Ran]

Ten years, wow that's a long time to think about it.

 

That's not unheard of. The Council of Trent, for example: its start was delayed for almost 10 years, and then it took almost 20 years to finish. And then the implementation of the council—I'm not sure but I wouldn't be surprised if it took at least that long.

 

They take a long time to think about things in Rome.

[theplains]

Regarding the "future Heavenly Father of Earth" and this "future Heavenly Father" marrying...what are you talking about?

 

I'm referring to the time when a man was married to some woman on some other planet and

they would eventually become the heavenly parents of Earth.

 

From what I have read in teachings published by the LDS Church, Heavenly Mother and

Father are presumably married and we are their spirit children. The 1997 version of Gospel

Principles mentions "heavenly parents" about 21 times. The 2009 version reduces this to

only 5.

 

Chapter 2 says, "All men and women are literally the sons and daughters of God. “Man,

as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the

eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical]

body".

 

Later in the same chapter, it says "Our Heavenly Father called a Grand Council to present

His plan for our progression (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, 209, 511).

We learned that if we followed His plan [i.e. getting married], we would become like Him. We

would be resurrected; we would have all power in heaven and on earth; we would become

heavenly parents and have spirit children just as He does (see D&C 132:19–20)".

 

A large omission is made in the 2009 version of chapter 36 for some reason, so I'll quote from

the 1997 version (The Family Can Be Eternal)

 

"The first family on earth was established by our Heavenly Father when he gave Eve to Adam

in marriage (see Moses 3:21–24). Since then, each of us has been commanded to marry

and have children so that through our own experience we can learn to be heavenly parents.

President Brigham Young explained that our families are not yet ours. The Lord has committed

them to us to see how we will treat them. Only if we are faithful will they be given to us forever.

What we do on earth determines whether or not we will be worthy to become heavenly parents

(see chapter 2, “Our Heavenly Family”).

 

Based on this, the teaching that Heavenly Mother and Father are married and having children

in a marriage covenant is either true, false, or purely speculation.  Or maybe they are not married

and they have children outside of the celestial marriage covenant.

 

What do you believe?

 

I thought all Latter-day Saints believed Heavenly Mother and Father are married.

 

Thanks,

Jim