Why Are We Such Brittle Christians?

[Spammer]

Pogi, if I may, there is another alternative.

What is the gospel? Faith, repentance, and baptism.

All of these, plus Chrismation and the Eucharist.

A Mormon would have to ask - faith in what? Trinitarianism?

Faith in Christ, the incarnate Word of God. Worship of the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit. Not everyone finds Trinitarianism to be incomprehensible.

Repentance for what? Being a Mormon?

There is only one thing to repent of - sin, defined as 'missing the mark' (hamartia), or choosing the world over union with God.

Baptism by what authority?

Baptism performed by Christ himself, through the priest who is specially ordained and set apart to be Christ's own hands in the administration of the sacraments.

Catholicism is the only possible option. No sir, ain't happening, way too much baggage.

There's another option without any of that baggage, the ancient tradition of the Christian East (aka Orthodoxy), which had no Reformation, no Crusades (though these Christians were the target of a Crusade), no Inquisitions, no Popes, no Original Sin, no notion of God sending anyone to hell, no atonement defined as paying the penalty or paying of debts - instead, atonement is defined as healing and the Church is a hospital, and worship of the Holy Trinity defined as the God who is Love, whose character as God is described by St. Anthony of Egypt (3rd century), the father of monasticism, in the following words:

God is good, dispassionate, and immutable. Now someone who thinks it reasonable and true to affirm that God does not change, may well ask how, in that case, is it possible to speak of God as rejoicing over those who are good and showing mercy to those who honour Him, and as turning away from the wicked and being angry with sinners. To this it must be answered that God neither rejoices nor grows angry, for to rejoice and to be offended are passions; nor is He won over by the gifts of those who honour Him, for that would mean He is swayed by pleasure. It is not right that the Divinity feel pleasure or displeasure from human conditions. He is good, and He only bestows blessings and never does harm, remaining always the same. We men, on the other hand, if we remain good through resembling God, are united to Him, but if we become evil through not resembling God, we are separated from Him. By living in holiness we cleave to God; but by becoming wicked we make Him our enemy. It is not that He grows angry with us in an arbitrary way, but it is our own sins that prevent God from shining within us and expose us to demons who torture us. And if through prayer and acts of compassion we gain release from our sins, this does not mean that we have won God over and made Him to change, but that through our actions and our turning to the Divinity, we have cured our wickedness and so once more have enjoyment of God’s goodness. Thus to say that God turns away from the wicked is like saying that the sun hides itself from the blind.

Baptism by what means? Sprinkling?

Baptism by triple immersion in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Baptism into what? Christ's sect of many conflicting sects, yet they are all Christ's and in him there is no confusion?

Baptism into Christ as a member of his Mystical Body, the undivided church.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Spammer

[JLHPROF]

Why do you think of the Church as being synonymous with the Gospel? JS didnt see it that way. Years went by between the FV and the founding of the Church. Did JS put his relationship with HF and Christ "on hold" until he was able to officially organize the Church? Or did he continue to seek to do God's will, even in the absence of a church under which to operate? I think we get it backwards when we think that Christ is dependent upon His church in order to operate in human affairs. It is we who are dependent upon Him.

 

I actually differentiate quite firmly between the Church and the Gospel.  However, the gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by the Church is the only form that I can accept. 

 

No, Joseph didn't put his relationship on hold, he held priesthood, received baptism and published scripture before the Church ever existed.

However, that doesn't change the fact that only the restored priesthood (which is only in the Church) was needed to restore true baptism (which is only in the church) as defined in the revelations (of which only Mormon religious groups accept).

 

So you see, it is impossible to have a complete relationship with Christ (at least in my opinion) outside of Mormonism, whether or not you are a member of an earthly state licensed Church.

To have that true relationship with Christ REQUIRES the restored gospel.  At least it always will for me and it did for Joseph Smith.

[stemelbow]

I've just heard for the umpteenth time on a podcast about how a committed saint lost his/her faith in the Church upon learning about JS' polyandry.  And, as is almost always the case, the person's loss of faith in the Church resulted in a complete loss of faith in Christ.  And I just don't get it.

 

And let's be clear.  I TOTALLY understand how somehow could lose faith in the Church.  I just don't get throwing out the baby (Jesus) with the polyandry.  In my studies of Mormon history, I've come to believe that there are many parts of our founding narrative that are either misunderstood, exaggerated, whitewashed or just plain not true.  But there is NOTHING that you could tell me about JS, BY, President Monson, my beloved bishop (or even my very own mother) that would cause me to abandon my belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

 

And don't get me wrong.  I'm not claiming that my faith in Christ is bullet-proof.  I could imagine losing faith in Christ if I suffered some horrendous personal tragedy that caused me to doubt the existence of a god or, at least, that a loving god could allow me to experience such pain.  I just can't imagine losing faith in my Savior because I felt lied to by a MAN.

 

Yet, I hear that time and again from Mormons.  They come to the conclusion that JS was not truthful or mistaken and pretty soon, there is no Jesus.  How do these two things become conflated?  After all, JS didn't "discover" Jesus Christ.  Nor did he "invent" the figure of a Savior out of whole cloth.  So even if JS was completely wrong about the Restoration, it wouldn't affect Christ's earthly ministry or any of the marvelous acts attributed to him in the Gospels.  So why is that when someone rejects Mormonism, they so often reject Christ too?

 

To me, it would be like going to the Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter movie and later discovering that it wasn't a "true life story," and then concluding that there must have never been an Abraham Lincoln at all.

 

To my knowledge, this doesn't happen with, say, Lutherans or Calvinists.  I've certainly never heard of anyone learning about Luther's horrifying anti-semitism or his allowing Philip's bigamy and then swearing off the Savior as a "fiction."  Most often, these people don't even consider leaving Lutheranism.  But even if they do decide that they must find a new church, it isn't the Church of Secular Humanism.  They simply move to another sect of Christianity or hope that their new church is slightly less flawed than their old church.

 

But what is it about Mormonism that creates such brittle Christians?  And is there a way to allow saints to come through the furnace of disaffection with their Christianity still largely intact?

Are we more brittle than other Christian groups? It'd be interesting to know I suppose.

[pogi]

Pogi, if I may, there is another alternative.

 

Thanks for sharing Spammer, but with all do respect, my family and friends are not included in your "undivided church."  Neither are the Muslims, Buddhists, ect.  Am I to believe in a Christ that condemns them all to hell for being born in the wrong culture? 

 

Edit: I did not read thoroughly enough.  You mentioned that orthodoxy does not believe in hell or original sin?  Am I misreading you here?

Edited December 19, 2014 by pogi

[saemo]

I know from my own experience, I continued to believe what Mormonism taught me, and therefore, believed nothing was true. The same is expressed here, in this thread by active LDS. When you take that with you after leaving Mormonism, along with feeling duped and deceived, you really want absolutely surety in religious claims. Who wants to be duped or deceived into joining up with something that isn't true, again? So you turn to what seems to be a surety of empirical evidence. For myself, I found that to also have no surety. It takes a leap of faith to go from Mormonism to another religion, especially if all you've ever been is LDS and are not reverting to the religion you were before joining the Mormon church. That leap, is one of the most difficult things I've done in my life.

 

Former LDS also continue to run on feelings. I've seen it recently in a blog, where a couple repeated several times over that they feel happier and more at peace after leaving Mormonism. The conclusion being, that their feelings are indicating their path is true.

 

That being said, I know more former LDS who have become Catholic than I know who have become atheist. Some may have spent some time as atheist/agnostic, others converted straight from Mormonism, with nothing else in between. Ex-Mormon online forums have a strong vocal representation of atheist/agnostic, but I wouldn't take that as representing everyone who leaves Mormonism. There are many who remain Christian.

[mormonnewb]

I actually differentiate quite firmly between the Church and the Gospel. However, the gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by the Church is the only form that I can accept.

No, Joseph didn't put his relationship on hold, he held priesthood, received baptism and published scripture before the Church ever existed.

However, that doesn't change the fact that only the restored priesthood (which is only in the Church) was needed to restore true baptism (which is only in the church) as defined in the revelations (of which only Mormon religious groups accept).

So you see, it is impossible to have a complete relationship with Christ (at least in my opinion) outside of Mormonism, whether or not you are a member of an earthly state licensed Church.

To have that true relationship with Christ REQUIRES the restored gospel. At least it always will for me and it did for Joseph Smith.

I understand your belief that it requires the Church to have a COMPLETE relationship with Christ. But would Christ cease to exist if the Church went away (or fell into apostasy)? Would you choose no relationship if you couldn't have the "real thing"? After all, as you see it, for 1500 years, Christians had a lesser relationship with Christ. Should they have been non-believers, forsaking all of His teachings, because the priesthood was not on the earth?

[JLHPROF]

I understand your belief that it requires the Church to have a COMPLETE relationship with Christ. But would Christ cease to exist if the Church went away (or fell into apostasy)? Would you choose no relationship if you couldn't have the "real thing"? After all, as you see it, for 1500 years, Christians had a lesser relationship with Christ. Should they have been non-believers, forsaking all of His teachings, because the priesthood was not on the earth?

 

No, of course Christ would still exist if the Church apostatized.  But since I consider the truth of Christianity to be contained in Mormonism, I don't know if I could exercise belief in a Christ I knew nothing about.

I suppose I could do my best to follow the bible, but I would always want to put the Mormon interpretation on the teachings of Christ.  I'd never be able to NOT read Christ's teachings through the lens of Mormonism.

 

That's why I don't know how I COULD have a relationship with Christ outside of Mormonism.  I would have no idea who I was exercising faith in.  If I decided Mormonism was false, what would be left of Christianity for me?  What belief aspects of Christianity exist independently of any religious sect?

[pogi]

I understand your belief that it requires the Church to have a COMPLETE relationship with Christ. But would Christ cease to exist if the Church went away (or fell into apostasy)? Would you choose no relationship if you couldn't have the "real thing"? After all, as you see it, for 1500 years, Christians had a lesser relationship with Christ. Should they have been non-believers, forsaking all of His teachings, because the priesthood was not on the earth?

 

What would you turn to mormonnewb?  Would you join another sect or would you believe in a non-sectarian Christian spirituality?  Being that you are a fairly recent convert, I suspect that it would not be that hard for you to go back to trinitarianism and your familiar old culture and creed. 

 

My problem is that I reject the creeds of sectarian Christianity.  I wouldn't even know how to believe in Christ where i reject both the Mormon perspective of Christ and the trinitarian perspective.  

Edited December 19, 2014 by pogi

[Spammer]

Thanks for sharing Spammer, but with all do respect, my family and friends are not included in your "undivided church." Neither are the Muslims, Buddhists, ect. Am I to believe in a Christ that condemns them all to hell for being born in the wrong culture?

Edit: I did not read thoroughly enough. You mentioned that orthodoxy does not believe in hell or original sin? Am I misreading you here?

Hell is defined as a state of the soul, it's the state of separation from God. Hell is not a place in our tradition. The judgement is the experience of being brought into the presence of God. For the wicked, that experience will be unbearable. Reminds me of a certain verse in Alma. .

So, no, God sends no one to hell. All will be brought to dwell in God's presence and will reside nearer or further, depending on the state of the soul. Yes, we have degrees of glory. We don't mean kingdoms, though. Think of chairs in a banquet. The worst of us will be furthest away from the throne, not because God sends us there. Given the state of our souls, getting any closer to Divinity is actually painful. Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria wrote about this idea of what heaven and hell are. So did C.S. Lewis. His Great Divorce is modeled after this image of the afterlife.

All of this employs metaphors, though. God is everywhere present and fills all things. There is no place where God is not. Once the veil is removed and God revealed in glory, all will dwell in that light eternally. The wicked will shrink and try to hide but there is no hiding place. Kind of scary to contemplate. Does this mean the wicked will eternally suffer? No dogma has been defined, but we certainly hope that the wicked in the next life can be brought even after death to repent and be transformed. It may well be that, just like the devil and his angels, some in their pride would still choose separation and suffering rather than repentance, submission, humility, and healing.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Spammer

[pogi]

Hell is defined as a state of the soul, it's the state of separation from God. Hell is not a place in our tradition. The judgement is the experience of being brought into the presence of God. For the wicked, that experience will be unbearable. Reminds me of a certain verse in Alma. .

So, no, God sends no one to hell. All will be brought to dwell in God's presence and will reside nearer or further, depending on the state of the soul. Yes, we have degrees of glory. We don't mean kingdoms, though. Think of chairs in a banquet. The worst of us will be furthest away from the throne, not because God sends us there. Given the state of our souls, getting any closer to Divinity is actually painful. Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria wrote about this idea of what heaven and hell are. So did C.S. Lewis. His Great Divorce is modeled after this image of the afterlife.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Christian_theology says:

 

"The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches teach that both the elect and the lost enter into the presence of God after death, and that the elect experience this presence as light and rest, while the lost experience it as darkness and torment."

 

While you may not call it hell, it is the same effect.

 

This fallen nature and all that has come from it is a result of "original sin." All humanity participates in the sin of Adam because like him, they are human and follow in his ways. The union of humanity with divinity in Jesus Christ restored, in the Person of Christ, the mode of existence of humanity, so that those who are incorporated in him may participate in this renewal of the perfect mode of existence, be saved from sin and death, and be united to God in deification. Original sin is cleansed in humans through baptism or, in the case of the Theotokos, the moment Christ took form within her.

According to this, you do believe in original sin.  So, what of the Mormons who's baptism is not accepted?  What of the non-Christians who die without baptism?  Are they doomed to this eternal hell like state?

 

[Spammer]

While you may not call it hell, it is the same effect.

 

Yes, but the difference is that God doesn't send you there.  You send yourself there based on who you are.  God is Love.  We can dwell comfortably in his presence in proportion to the degree the character of our souls allows us to dwell comfortably in his presence.  It's entirely up to us and, speaking metaphorically, the gates of hell are locked only from the inside.  If we choose to pursue holiness, then we open the door and let ourselves out. Holy things for the holy. 

 

 

 

According to this, you do believe in original sin.  So, what of the Mormons who's baptism is not accepted?  What of the non-Christians who die without baptism?  Are they doomed to this eternal hell like state?

 

You should reference Orthodox sources, not Wikipedia.  We call it ancestral sin.  There is no inherited guilt or stain on our souls.  That was all Augustine and his conception was only accepted in the West.  Like Mormons, "We believe that man will be punished for his own sins and not for Adam's transgression", though unlike Western Christians, we believe that God punishes no one.  It follows that in our view Mary did not need to be preserved from Original Sin since the ancestral sin did not put a mark or stain on the human soul.  That's why the Orthodox do not accept the Immaculate Conception.  There is no inherited guilt.  Though we suffer from its effects, the ancestral sin was Adam's alone.  It's effect was to introduce the state of spiritual separation from God, death, and corruption into the world.  In our view, it effected an ontological change in the cosmos.  Given the breaking of communion, we are now prone to sin.  But, as I said in my previous post, sin is defined as 'missing the mark' (hamartia).  Sin is not an act that offends God and makes him mad.  Sin is more of a state than any specific act - it's the state of living in a manner that strengthens the ego, turning us inward toward ourselves and away from God.  Sin is more of a state of being, an inclination or proclivity.  Turning from sin is a gradual process that comes about through prayer, fasting, and attendance at the Divine Liturgy where Jesus gives himself to us in the Eucharist - the divine food which is the 'medicine of immortality'.  Through the Eucharist, Jesus unites himself with us to strengthen us on our journey and helps us as we strive to pray and fast more and more, with the goal of attaining to permanent divine union.  The atonement is an act through which Christ unites himself with our human nature, even unto death, to heal that nature - destroying death and corruption.  Every Pascha (Easter) we sing over and over again "Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death; and upon those in the tombs bestowing life."  Baptism doesn't cleanse us from original sin (there is no stain or mark on our souls to be cleansed) but adds us to Christ's body, restoring us to communion, the same communion we would have enjoyed if not for the Fall.  That communion is strengthened through the Eucharist, as I said.  That's why we baptize infants.  They don't need to be cleansed from original sin.  We baptize them so they can be added to the Body of Christ right from the start.  We also commune infants the day they're baptized.  Why would we deny our infants access to the Lord of Glory?  We immediately baptize and commune them to get them started on the path of unification with God (theosis).  We reject the traditional notion of Original Sin.  That's why the East never had any theologians contemplating the fate of unbaptized infants.  There's no limbo or hellfire awaiting infants in our discourse.  Infants who die without baptism are taken immediately into heaven.

 

All of that is a necessary precursor to what follows.  Regarding Mormons whose baptism is not accepted and non-Christians, their fate is up to God alone.  All of us is fallen and separated from God.  The only thing we enjoy as Orthodox Christians that Mormons, Protestants, and non-Christians do not enjoy is membership in the Body of Christ, along with the sacramental means given us by Christ himself to help us, through which we can be healed (some cranky Orthodox put Catholics outside of the Body of Christ, but I don't.  They are our separated brethren and sisters in Christ).  Whether Mormons, Protestants, and non-Christians are 'doomed to this eternal hell like state' is up to them and how they live their lives.  If they are a law unto themselves and live a life of righteousness, then in our belief the grace of Christ is sufficient for them.  It's not up to us, as Orthodox Christians, to say or know anything about what will happen to them.  As one of our monks has said, "There may be members of the church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone." It's true that only in and through Christ all mankind is saved and that the Church, as the undivided Body of Christ, is the only place where the material means through which Christ makes himself present to us sacramentally are available to help us and heal us (the way we see it, why on earth would someone who's 'in the know' not want to avail themselves of those resources?!).  It's not true that only those who know Christ in his undivided church and avail themselves of those resources will be saved. Who is saved in God's kingdom is not our business and we consider it sinful to speculate and make pronouncements about who is and is not going to be saved.  We are to focus on ourselves exclusively and compare ourselves to God alone.  By that comparison, each of us is 'the first of sinners'. We belong to the Church because we know we're sinners and we need everything Christ has made available to help us be healed and become like him.  Those who are already holy and not in need of such help, well then I suppose they don't need Christ and his Church, do they?  Those who aren't sick don't need the doctor and a hospital.  Christians are those who know they are sick and place themselves into the care of the Eternal Physician. 

 

So, will only Orthodox Christians be saved?  No.  We hope that even the devil and his angels can one day be saved.  God is Love and we are commanded to love as God loves.  As I said at the end of my previous post, "Does [our notion of hell] mean the wicked will eternally suffer? No dogma has been defined, but we certainly hope that the wicked in the next life can be brought even after death to repent and be transformed. It may well be that, just like the devil and his angels, some in their pride would still choose separation and suffering rather than repentance, submission, humility, and healing."

Edited December 19, 2014 by Spammer

[pogi]

Spammer, I like a lot of what you say.  It feels very much like Mormonism in a lot of ways.  If what you say is accurate, Eastern Orthodoxy might be first runner up for me.  Now if you can convince me that Baptism is not required for exaltation, that Christ is 1 and 3, His own father and his own son, an eternal unchanging spirit who changed none-the-less and became flesh temporarily then back to unchanging spirit, who talked to himself in prayer and gave thanks and glory to himself, who asked himself for help and strength in the garden of Gethsemane and relinquished his own will to his own will in doing his own will of drinking the bitter cup (not my will, but thine...),  that the Church never apostatized, that the organization of Christ's church with apostles and prophets is not important, that man is not the literal offspring of God with the inherited potential for divinity, etc. etc. then you have given me somewhere comfortable to fall.

Edited December 19, 2014 by pogi

[bcuzbcuz]

No, of course Christ would still exist if the Church apostatized.  But since I consider the truth of Christianity to be contained in Mormonism, I don't know if I could exercise belief in a Christ I knew nothing about.

I suppose I could do my best to follow the bible, but I would always want to put the Mormon interpretation on the teachings of Christ.  I'd never be able to NOT read Christ's teachings through the lens of Mormonism.

 

That's why I don't know how I COULD have a relationship with Christ outside of Mormonism.  I would have no idea who I was exercising faith in.  If I decided Mormonism was false, what would be left of Christianity for me?  What belief aspects of Christianity exist independently of any religious sect?

Many good, faithful Mormons, who also define themselves as true believers in Christ and the Bible, feel crushed when they find out their conviction in the Mormon definition of truth is shown to be full of holes. It's a belief in a modern day prophet and scriptures that reflect a "new world" vision. But you define it well, "I don't know how I could have a relationship with Christ outside of Mormonism."

When that relationship to Mormonism is eroded by tthe complete story about Joseph Smith and his unfaithfulness to Emma, or apologists trying to explain away discrepancies in both the leaders or the mormon scriptures,, then there is really nowhere else to turn.. I remember reading someone trying to explain the Book of Mormon horses and saying the book was actually talking about tapirs, or was that capybaras, or llamas or nutrias, or moose, or elk, or buffalo. I don't remember exactly. But it was someone fumbling around in darkness, trying to fill in impossible gaps in logic with anything that "might" fit.

It is entirely possible to continue believing in completely false religions or crooked leaders. The alternative, of having nothing to believe in, is frightening. It is even harder for a parent(s) to explain to their child(ren) that every value previously endorsed,is tainted, tarnished and/or groundlesss. So it is easier to procrastinate, continue with the status quo and decide that a decision will be taken sometime in the future.

[Calm]

Spammer, I like a lot of what you say.  It feels very much like Mormonism in a lot of ways.  If what you say is accurate, Eastern Orthodoxy might be first runner up for me.  Now if you can convince me that Baptism is not required for exaltation

Spammer can correct me if I am wrong for EOs, but if I understand the Catholic position correctly, the Sacrament of baptism is required…they just define and practice it differently than LDS do allowing for a baptism of desire and other forms outside of actual immersion (though EOs do full immersion I believe, at least I've seen a video of a full immersion of an infant at his christening…three times IIRC).

Edited December 19, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

It is entirely possible to continue believing in completely false religions or crooked leaders. The alternative, of having nothing to believe in, is frightening. It is even harder for a parent(s) to explain to their child(ren) that every value previously endorsed,is tainted, tarnished and/or groundlesss. So it is easier to procrastinate, continue with the status quo and decide that a decision will be taken sometime in the future.

I just don't see how a faith that can have once been attractive and thought to have produced a good way of life would suddenly be completely false and leaving one with nothing to believe in at all.

Edited December 19, 2014 by calmoriah

[pogi]

Spammer can correct me if I am wrong for EOs, but if I understand the Catholic position correctly, the Sacrament of baptism is required…they just define and practice it differently than LDS do allowing for a baptism of desire and other forms outside of actual immersion (though EOs do full immersion I believe, at least I've seen a video of a full immersion of an infant at his christening…three times IIRC).

 

I remember hearing about that (baptism of desire) from another poster, but assumed that it was a Western thing.

[Hamba Tuhan]

The same spirit that entices members to reject the Restoration of the Gospel will also bear down upon them to reject Christ...

 

This.

 

That which attacks 'Mormonism' inevitably attacks faith in Christ.

[3DOP]

What would you turn to mormonnewb?  Would you join another sect or would you believe in a non-sectarian Christian spirituality?  Being that you are a fairly recent convert, I suspect that it would not be that hard for you to go back to trinitarianism and your familiar old culture and creed. 

 

My problem is that I reject the creeds of sectarian Christianity.  I wouldn't even know how to believe in Christ where i reject both the Mormon perspective of Christ and the trinitarian perspective.  

 

Why do you assume that the Restoration has to be available in your lifetime pogi? As MormonNewb has pointed out, 1500 years elapsed, probably more, between the Restoration in which you believe and the Apostasy which is necessary. Why would consistent Mormons credibly reject the entire Gospel when they say they are satisfied with a view of things which allows for very long periods where there was no true church or priest? If you are wrong about the LDS Church, and even if you are right about Rome and the East, why would you not be a Restorationist-in-Waiting? So now it is 1670 years...Big deal...what about "the light of Christ" without priests? I thought that was pretty valuable in the absence of a true church.  

Edited December 20, 2014 by 3DOP

[Calm]

Why do you assume that the Restoration has to be available in your lifetime pogi?

 

I assume pogi believes it has been revealed to him, that it is not just an assumption.

 

Why…because God says it is time for it, at least that is my belief.

 

I see the problem as mostly being people doubting their ability to feel the Spirit thinking it is just another emotional reaction and therefore having doubt that God even exists because they doubt spiritual witnesses of Him.  This is based on listening to exit stories.

[3DOP]

I assume pogi believes it has been revealed to him, that it is not just an assumption.

 

Why…because God says it is time for it, at least that is my belief.

 

I see the problem as mostly being people doubting their ability to feel the Spirit thinking it is just another emotional reaction and therefore having doubt that God even exists because they doubt spiritual witnesses of Him.  This is based on listening to exit stories.

 

Okay cal and pogi. This explains our most fundamental difference and answers Newb's question. In a hierarchy, first I believe in God, then His Son, the Gospel story, then the Church. I would not be an atheist if I somehow lost faith in a church you know I believe in. Maybe this is why you don't like proofs for existence of God and I do? Right or wrong, traditional Christians have something to maintain their faith in God if their church is false. Mormons do not have that. I am not sure that you would accept this as being "brittle". But it does seem to speak to the question.

[pogi]

Why do you assume that the Restoration has to be available in your lifetime pogi? As MormonNewb has pointed out, 1500 years elapsed, probably more, between the Restoration in which you believe and the Apostasy which is necessary. Why would consistent Mormons credibly reject the entire Gospel when they say they are satisfied with a view of things which allows for very long periods where there was no true church or priest? If you are wrong about the LDS Church, and even if you are right about Rome and the East, why would you not be a Restorationist-in-Waiting? So now it is 1670 years...Big deal...what about "the light of Christ" without priests? I thought that was pretty valuable in the absence of a true church.  

 

As I said before, I would probably become some non-sectarian, new-age, spirituality guy.  I cannot deny my experience with prayer.  I know that there is a higher power and I know that he is happy with the path that I am on and wants me to continue on it.  I don't really know anything else with certainty.  I believe the way I do because I have been directed to through the spirit.  If you remove that path from me, I wouldn't know where to turn or what to believe in.  All I would have is prayer.

[Spammer]

Spammer, I like a lot of what you say.  It feels very much like Mormonism in a lot of ways.  If what you say is accurate, Eastern Orthodoxy might be first runner up for me.  Now if you can convince me that Baptism is not required for exaltation, that Christ is 1 and 3, His own father and his own son, an eternal unchanging spirit who changed none-the-less and became flesh temporarily then back to unchanging spirit, who talked to himself in prayer and gave thanks and glory to himself, who asked himself for help and strength in the garden of Gethsemane and relinquished his own will to his own will in doing his own will of drinking the bitter cup (not my will, but thine...),  that the Church never apostatized, that the organization of Christ's church with apostles and prophets is not important, that man is not the literal offspring of God with the inherited potential for divinity, etc. etc. then you have given me somewhere comfortable to fall.

 

Hey Pogi, firstly, we don't view the sacraments as ordinances.  They aren't required actions on a checklist, necessary steps before God 'lets us in' to his kingdom.  When you think of the East, you need to take any idea of checklists, rules, and requirements and toss it out the window.  The sacraments are the means through which we receive the grace of Christ, which is nothing less than God himself - God in his energies.  The sacraments are the means through which Christ shares his divine nature with us.  We can participate in divinity here and now.  Secondly, the agent that effects the 'delivery' of divine energies to us through material means is Christ himself.  He is the Great High Priest who baptizes, chrismates, and gives us his flesh and blood to eat and drink in the Eucharist.  Yes, we believe baptism is required, but we don't view it as an ordinance that must be received before we can advance to another level.  Baptism, the act through which we mystically participate in the death and resurrection of Christ, becoming a new creature, incorporates us into the Body of Christ.  It's required for those who want to be Christians since it's the means established by Christ through which we add ourselves to his mystical Body.  It is a means of purifying grace that is enacted by Christ himself through the hands of the priest.   Christ is the one who baptizes and Christ can baptize whomever he wants.  That means he can add whomever he wants to his Church.  It's his church and his business, not ours.  You can see why, then, we don't believe in baptism for the dead.  It's unnecessary.  If Jesus wants to add someone who isn't Orthodox or who is dead to the Church, then Jesus can do so. 

 

Regarding the Holy Trinity, what you've described is modalism, a common misunderstanding of the Trinity among non-Catholics and non-Orthodox.  Modalism is considered a heretical view by both Catholics and Orthodox.  Christ is not his own Father and own Son who talked to himself and gave thanks and glory to himself, etc.  The Father is not one mode or manifestation of God, Christ another, and the Holy Spirit another.  God is not a god with three faces or modes.  God is both one and three.  Christ prayed to his Father, not to himself.  They are two separate persons who share a single essence with the Holy Spirit.  One God in Three Persons, the Holy Trinity.  You, me, and a friend cannot be both one and three.  We are three and will always be three.  We are finite beings stuck in space in time.  God is outside time and space and is an infinite, divine essence.  That single essence exists in three separate persons.  The second person, God the Son, took on human flesh and became man - the God-Man, fully God and fully man (we don't believe Jesus was a half man-half God demigod).  That probably won't satisfy you, but I hope I've clarified the difference between modalism and the Holy Trinity of the Creed.

 

Regarding the Apostasy, all I'll say is that traditional LDS evidences derived from the example of Catholicism do not apply.  The best evidence for the Apostasy is the fact that Judas was replaced (though, obviously, we interpret the same evidence differently) and the testimony of Joseph Smith.  I would hope that anyone who fails to gain that testimony or loses it, rather than abandon Christ altogether, would unite himself to the ancient church, the church of Ignatius of Antioch (the apostle John's disciple), Polycarp of Smyrna (another of John's disciples), Irenaeus of Lyon (Polycarp's disciple), St. Athansasius, St. John Chrysostom, the Cappadocian Fathers (Sts. Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazienzen), Origen, Clement of Alexandria, St. Anthony of Egypt, St. Isaac of Syria, and all of the other Greek, Syrian, and Egyptian Fathers of the Church.  

 

Finally, we don't believe we're the literal offspring of God.  God is uncreated, infinite, and eternal, we are created and finite.  God to us is the One besides whom there is no other.  Unlike Mormons, we don't believe in a pre-existent, co-eternal pool of intelligences out of which we came.  I'm afraid that's something else besides our belief in the Holy Trinity that will always be different between us

Edited December 20, 2014 by Spammer

[pogi]

I would not be an atheist if I somehow lost faith in a church you know I believe in.

 

I would not be an atheist either, but what if you lost faith in not only your church but also in trinitarianism and rejected every other creed and perspective of God.  What would you believe?  You see, if you lost faith in Catholicism, you would still maintain your trinitarian views and could maintain some semblance of who and what God is.  Mormons would lose everything.

[Spammer]

Spammer can correct me if I am wrong for EOs, but if I understand the Catholic position correctly, the Sacrament of baptism is required…they just define and practice it differently than LDS do allowing for a baptism of desire and other forms outside of actual immersion (though EOs do full immersion I believe, at least I've seen a video of a full immersion of an infant at his christening…three times IIRC).

 

Our belief is the same as Catholics, though we don't use the same terminology.  As I said in my response to Pogi, Christ is the one who baptizes and he can baptize whomever he wants.  That includes those who desire to be Christians and are unable to be baptized for some reason not their fault, those who are martyred for Christ, infants, and many others that are only known to God.

[pogi]

Hey Pogi, firstly, we don't view the sacraments as ordinances.  They aren't required actions on a checklist, necessary steps before God 'lets us in' to his kingdom.  When you think of the East, you need to take any idea of checklists, rules, and requirements and toss it out the window.  The sacraments are the means through which we receive the grace of Christ, which is nothing less than God himself - God in his energies.  The sacraments are the means through which Christ shares his divine nature with us.  We can participate in divinity here and now.  Secondly, the agent that effects the 'delivery' of divine energies to us through material means is Christ himself.  He is the Great High Priest who baptizes, chrismates, and gives us his flesh and blood to eat and drink in the Eucharist.  Yes, we believe baptism is required, but we don't view it as an ordinance that must be received before we can advance to another level.  Baptism, the act through which we mystically participate in the death and resurrection of Christ, becoming a new creature, incorporates us into the Body of Christ.  It's required for those who want to be Christians since it's the means established by Christ through which we add ourselves to his mystical Body.  It is a means of purifying grace that is enacted by Christ himself through the hands of the priest.   Christ is the one who baptizes and Christ can baptize whomever he wants.  That means he can add whomever he wants to his Church.  It's his church and his business, not ours.  You can see why, then, we don't believe in baptism for the dead.  It's unnecessary.  If Jesus wants to add someone who isn't Orthodox or who is dead to the Church, then Jesus can do so. 

 

Regarding the Holy Trinity, what you've described is modalism, a common misunderstanding of the Trinity among non-Catholics and non-Orthodox.  Modalism is considered a heretical view by both Catholics and Orthodox.  Christ is not his own Father and own Son who talked to himself and gave thanks and glory to himself, etc.  The Father is not one mode or manifestation of God, Christ another, and the Holy Spirit another.  God is not a god with three faces or modes.  God is both one and three.  Christ prayed to his Father, not to himself.  They are two separate persons who share a single essence with the Holy Spirit.  One God in Three Persons, the Holy Trinity.  You, me, and a friend cannot be both one and three.  We are three and will always be three.  We are finite beings stuck in space in time.  God is outside time and space and is an infinite, divine essence.  That single essence exists in three separate persons.  The second person, God the Son, took on human flesh and became man - the God-Man, fully God and fully man (we don't believe Jesus was a half man-half God demigod).  That probably won't satisfy you, but I hope I've clarified the difference between modalism and the Holy Trinity of the Creed.

 

Regarding the Apostasy, all I'll say is that traditional LDS evidences derived from the example of Catholicism do not apply.  The best evidence for the Apostasy is the fact that Judas was replaced (though, obviously, we interpret the same evidence differently) and the testimony of Joseph Smith.  I would hope that anyone who fails to gain that testimony or loses it, rather than abandon Christ altogether, would unite himself to the ancient church, the church of Ignatius of Antioch (the apostle John's disciple), Polycarp of Smyrna (another of John's disciples), Irenaeus of Lyon (Polycarp's disciple), St. Athansasius, St. John Chrysostom, the Cappadocian Fathers (Sts. Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazienzen), Origen, Clement of Alexandria, St. Anthony of Egypt, St. Isaac of Syria, and all of the other Greek, Syrian, and Egyptian Fathers of the Church.  

 

Finally, we don't believe we're the literal offspring of God.  God is uncreated, infinite, and eternal, we are created and finite.  God to us is the One besides whom there is no other.  Unlike Mormons, we don't believe in a pre-existent, co-eternal pool of intelligences out of which we came.  I'm afraid that's something else besides our belief in the Holy Trinity that will always be different between us

 

I respect your beliefs, but respectfully cannot accept the 1 and 3 thing.  I cannot even begin to grasp what you just said.  Without a direct revelation to me, I cannot accept it.

Edited December 20, 2014 by pogi