Lovedtodeath Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 neither :DJust stating the obvious for any and everyone. ;) Yeah, I thought of a third option: adding to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swimmermom3 Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 I'm guessing that the Catholic church has done that? I'm not sure what you're saying here. Keep reading until you find something that you can interpret differently so that it matches your belief? Isn't it dangerous if your belief comes first & then you try to find things to match it? It's all moot to me btw - I'm an atheist. I do find it academically fascinating. But I also find it mind-boggling how many folks think they have THE answer & THE correct interpretation. Mind-boggling? Yes, and painful, sad, disheartening , discouraging. Perhaps this kind of confrontation where no one is listening to each other any more is why I no longer make a very good Christian, if I ever did. This reminds me of my dh's family: 6 siblings, 6 different belief systems. Choosing a church to take my 89-year-old MIL to during a family reunion is impossible. To pick one church would be to acknowledge that as the true church. It's so hard watching good, kind, lovely people get, well, ugly about what's right. This thread started with an interesting question. It's deteriorated. Sorry, I know. It's time for me to get off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasRachel Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 (edited) ...Mormon doctrine teaches that Jesus was someone who worked His way up to being a god (godhood) ... Mormons don't like to be viewed as polytheist (belief in or worship of more than one god); so they do not prayer to Jesus. They confess that they believe in the existence of many gods (Jesus being one of them) but pray only to God the Father. Oh, where to start. All of the above is wrong. In our belief (versus your belief of our belief): Jesus is the literal son of Heavenly Father. He didn't work his way to anything. He is His son (versus the rest of us being His spirit children). Yes, we think he is part of the Trinity (although we don't focus on it as such), but separate from the Father. We worship One, Almighty God. Our prayers are to the Father through Jesus. From our sacrament prayers (one of the few scripted prayers we have): O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ...And for my knowledge: do other faiths "pray to Jesus" versus praying through him to God? I don't know that I've ever heard anyone pray that way. ETA: wait. or are you saying that we don't pray to Jesus (even though we supposedly think he's a god) because we don't want others to think badly of us? Like we haven't/don't do enough "weird" stuff to make other people think badly of us. ie, this whole thread. There are tons of things we do (or have done in the past) that we believe in enough to take a stand for even in life or death situations. If we really wanted to pray to Jesus/whatever we would. We don't because there is One God. We pray to Him. Edited August 22, 2009 by TexasRachel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyFourSons Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 (edited) Oh, where to start. All of the above is wrong. In our belief (versus your belief of our belief): Jesus is the literal son of Heavenly Father. He didn't work his way to anything. He is His son (versus the rest of us being His spirit children). Yes, we think he is part of the Trinity (although we don't focus on it as such), but separate from the Father. We worship One, Almighty God. Our prayers are to the Father through Jesus. From our sacrament prayers (one of the few scripted prayers we have): And for my knowledge: do other faiths "pray to Jesus" versus praying through him to God? I don't know that I've ever heard anyone pray that way. ETA: wait. or are you saying that we don't pray to Jesus (even though we supposedly think he's a god) because we don't want others to think badly of us? Like we haven't/don't do enough "weird" stuff to make other people think badly of us. ie, this whole thread. There are tons of things we do (or have done in the past) that we believe in enough to take a stand for even in life or death situations. If we really wanted to pray to Jesus/whatever we would. We don't because there is One God. We pray to Him. I just wanted to let you know that other Christians do "pray to Jesus." The original doctrine of the Trinity as explained through various historical documents and the Creeds, and which I explained in my previous posts, explains the Christian belief that Jesus is "God from God, light from light, one in being with the Father." Jesus and God are two different representations of the same God, so the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three in one. This is hard for most Christians to actually understand, and so many just accept it as a divine mystery and rely on "blind faith" as you will to come to terms with what seems like a contradiction. But there are biblical reasons for this interpretation of the nature of God, which I also presented in previous posts. I'm not trying to tell you you are wrong, just trying to present the historical facts about this particular belief outside Mormonism. Edited August 22, 2009 by MyFourSons Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyFourSons Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 (edited) Nope, not snarky. Totally fine. It is hard to find ways to express ideas without being able to see faces and understand nuance. This has been interesting to me. I just wanted to address your comparison of the Eucharsit to the ceremonies that take place within the Temple, as that is a very common comparison, but not entirely accurate. Although you must be a member of the Catholic church and be without sin to recieve holy communion, any one of any faith or denomonation is still free to enter any Catholic church and attend the mass, watch the rituals and ceremonies and participate up to the point of actually eating the host and drinking the wine. The most holy spaces in Catholocism and the most holy ritual, the Eucharist, can be witnessed by anyone on any given day. This is different from Mormon Temples, as Mormons are not allowed to enter certain parts of the Temple, or participate in the different ceremonies, without written permission. According to my knowledge, you can correct me if I am wrong, the Temple reccomend is given by a bishop and is dependent upon an interview where the conduct and the tithing of the individual is examined. Non-Mormons can NEVER enter certain areas of the Temple and can never witness let alone participate in the rituals that take place there. I've taken a tour of the Temple of Salt Lake, and so I realize there are certain areas that allow tourists and visitors and people without Temple recommends, but most of the Temple requires a written permission which is only given to practicing Mormons who contribute financially to their church. In fact, Mormons aren't even allowed to discuss certain details of what goes on inside a Temple with non Mormons. This means that you if are not a Mormon, and your son converts to Mormonism and is married in the Temple, you are not allowed to attend the ceremony or fully know what went on. I know people who have experienced this sad situation. In Catholocism, anyone can attend the ceremony, even if they don't fully participate in it by eating the Eucharist. So, these are two very different set of circumstances. While recieving sacrament of Communion is reserved for practicing Catholics, you can still witness the sacrament being taken by others. The church itself and the rituals and ceremonies are open to the public. The most holy of all of our spaces are available to anyone, because sinners are at times in most need of God's grace. If Mormonism was open in this way, there might be less stereotyping and prejudice. The other responses you made to my remarks seem to be a matter of opinion, and we both seem to be pretty firm in our own interpretations, so I will leave the argument at that. I have stated the historical case of the Catholic church, and you have also stated your case very well. Thank you for the lively debate, it has been interesting and fun! Edited August 22, 2009 by MyFourSons Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tea Time Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Jesus and God are two different representations of the same God, so the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three in one. This is hard for most Christians to actually understand, and so many just accept it as a divine mystery and rely on "blind faith" as you will to come to terms with what seems like a contradiction. But there are biblical reasons for this interpretation of the nature of God, which I also presented in previous posts. I'm not trying to tell you you are wrong, just trying to present the historical facts about this particular belief outside Mormonism. :iagree: The Trinitarian God is essential to really comprehend the concept of man being made in the image of God, among other things. It IS a very difficult concept. To have a non-Trinitarian God is kind of like taking a three dimensional object and trying to flatten it into two dimensions. A lot gets lost, but certainly, it is easy to see why the belief is difficult and a mystery. The icing on the Trinitarian idea came for me when I read about John Paul II's Theology of the Body. Here is a horrible oversimplification from a source that is already simplifying (Theology of the Body for Beginners). The nature of God is love, right? We all can pretty much agree on that, right? Well, love can only exist if is is shared (or given away, you might say). That sharing of love idea already exists in the very nature of the One God. God is like a family in His very being which is why it contains three "persons" (not three beings which would be polytheistic). Only God is so complex, so beyond comprehension - beyond space and time - that He is described as Trinitarian (which is just a simplification for the benefit of our human understanding). Authority, spirit and power, flesh and bone, matter and mind. All this and more we can't even fathom. But, unlike us, God's personality never quibbles over position or power. They are one in complete and perfect harmony and balance and total self giving love and strength. So, how do humans get made in this image? Well, there are the normal things we think of like "thought" and "creativity" and such. That is God's image, but to understand God's image is to see Man as "humankind" - FAMILY. In God's plan (which is sadly less than perfect after the Fall) the man gives himself completely to the woman who in turn gives completely right back and from them is brought forth (by their love) life itself in the form of a child. No one member is superior or unequal. All have value, purpose, wholeness. Together they reflect the nature of God, the image (for they are not God) of God's true character. But I do not believe that God uses this as a stumbling block for faithful people. Not everyone is called to analyze and deal with all these questions. That is why I believe “the faithful†can be found everywhere. We tend to recognize one another IRL, which is why we actually do better IRL than in debates and sometimes on these forums! Thank goodness. I also want to add that the Catholic devotion to family is a common ground for Catholics and Mormons and other Protestant groups who also see family as very important. This brings us together on many social issues and it a great source of hope. I love my Mormon friends (who came to my family’s reception into the Catholic Church!) and they love us. May everyone follow God’s calling in faithfulness and love! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MamaSheep Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 :iagree:The Trinitarian God is essential to really comprehend the concept of man being made in the image of God, among other things. It IS a very difficult concept. To have a non-Trinitarian God is kind of like taking a three dimensional object and trying to flatten it into two dimensions. A lot gets lost, but certainly, it is easy to see why the belief is difficult and a mystery. The icing on the Trinitarian idea came for me when I read about John Paul II's Theology of the Body. Here is a horrible oversimplification from a source that is already simplifying (Theology of the Body for Beginners). The nature of God is love, right? We all can pretty much agree on that, right? Well, love can only exist if is is shared (or given away, you might say). That sharing of love idea already exists in the very nature of the One God. God is like a family in His very being which is why it contains three "persons" (not three beings which would be polytheistic). Only God is so complex, so beyond comprehension - beyond space and time - that He is described as Trinitarian (which is just a simplification for the benefit of our human understanding). Authority, spirit and power, flesh and bone, matter and mind. All this and more we can't even fathom. But, unlike us, God's personality never quibbles over position or power. They are one in complete and perfect harmony and balance and total self giving love and strength. So, how do humans get made in this image? Well, there are the normal things we think of like "thought" and "creativity" and such. That is God's image, but to understand God's image is to see Man as "humankind" - FAMILY. In God's plan (which is sadly less than perfect after the Fall) the man gives himself completely to the woman who in turn gives completely right back and from them is brought forth (by their love) life itself in the form of a child. No one member is superior or unequal. All have value, purpose, wholeness. Together they reflect the nature of God, the image (for they are not God) of God's true character. But I do not believe that God uses this as a stumbling block for faithful people. Not everyone is called to analyze and deal with all these questions. That is why I believe “the faithful†can be found everywhere. We tend to recognize one another IRL, which is why we actually do better IRL than in debates and sometimes on these forums! Thank goodness. I also want to add that the Catholic devotion to family is a common ground for Catholics and Mormons and other Protestant groups who also see family as very important. This brings us together on many social issues and it a great source of hope. I love my Mormon friends (who came to my family’s reception into the Catholic Church!) and they love us. May everyone follow God’s calling in faithfulness and love! How very interesting. I have always thought that a non-Trinitarian God is essential to comprehend the concept of man being made in God's image. The trinitarian conception of God has always seemed to me to be an overcomplication constructed by men who were unsatisfied with clean, elegant, simply stated truths about God and demanded a more complex and mysterious "deity" to worship rather than humbly accepting God at His word. This has been such an interesting discussion to skim through, and I have several times wished I had time to delve in properly. This is one of them. But I really don't. Sigh. Like you, I believe that what God requires of us is faith and faithfulness, not absolute and untainted knowledge of His nature (which I do not believe we are even capable of fully comprehending at any rate), and it is generally more constructive to find common ground where we can stand together than it is to seek out ways to pick each other apart. But I have always enjoyed hearing other perspectives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyFourSons Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 I also want to add that the Catholic devotion to family is a common ground for Catholics and Mormons and other Protestant groups who also see family as very important. This brings us together on many social issues and it a great source of hope. I love my Mormon friends (who came to my family’s reception into the Catholic Church!) and they love us. May everyone follow God’s calling in faithfulness and love! :iagree: That was very well put, thank you so much! It is often hard to express the sense that you still love and respect the people you are disagreeing with when you are in the midst of a debate. It is important to step back and remember what it is you have in common once in a while, and I appreciate you doing that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionfamily1999 Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 There's that old song that says "to know him is to love him." That is why people are so preoccupied with the nature of God and the relationship of the Trinity, and other matters of Doctrine. Many Christians don't just want to follow blindly, they want to know their God. And they believe that God became man in the form of Jesus because he wanted to reveal Himself to His people. It also isn't really fair to bash someone who takes a more analytical approach to their faith and happens to be more drawn to this type of debate. It can be seen as very intellectually stimulating, and some people respond better to that type of spirituality. People experience spritituality differently just as people learn differently. Some approach it from analytical view, while some prefer to rely more on their intuition and emotions, and others want more hands on or physical expressions of faith such as singing or dancing. There isn't one right way to go about it. I just wanted to be clear on whether or not it was REQUIRED. IOW, if there's a difference between how two people believe regarding those other things, does it effect their salvation? I was not trying to bash Carmen at all, btw. I love her, she's been an incredible friend to me, and (more importantly) I trust her. I trust her to tell me the truth and set me straight. That's why I asked her. I do appreciate your answer though, it covers everything I wanted to know. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tea Time Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 How very interesting. I have always thought that a non-Trinitarian God is essential to comprehend the concept of man being made in God's image. The trinitarian conception of God has always seemed to me to be an overcomplication constructed by men who were unsatisfied with clean, elegant, simply stated truths about God and demanded a more complex and mysterious "deity" to worship rather than humbly accepting God at His word. This has been such an interesting discussion to skim through, and I have several times wished I had time to delve in properly. This is one of them. But I really don't. Sigh. The question is, why would anyone "demand a more complex and mysterious 'deity' to worship"? To what end? I think we are rather more prone to oversimplify things and too prideful to admit there is anything beyond our understanding. And sometimes efforts to "simplify things" lead to even more complications. The Mormon faith (with a non-Trinitarian God) added a whole other book of scripture, and it is very, very complex if you want to fully grasp it. I don't even attempt to say what the Mormons believe because I really don't know. But complexity itself is NOT an argument against Mormon beliefs. Where humility is concerned, the Reformer (of anything) must always resist the temptation of pride as the idea of "rescuing the truth from unworthy hands" is a very seductive one. "Clean, elegant and simply stated" is not the same for everyone. I think physics is a bit too complicated, but to some people much of it really is "clean, elegant, simply stated truths," just not to me! I have to take a lot of it on faith. I look around and I see a world that is very complicated, so I am not surprised that there is a complex God, and I think it is quite humble to acknowledge that. Amazing how easy it is to flip these things back and forth though, isn't it? I can easily see both views in my mind. I remember this when I am seeking truth, and humility is a far greater goal than being "right" ever will be. I wish you could delve in, too, but I completely understand! I need to curb this habit come Monday, but I love stimulating conversation, and I can always find it on this board. It doesn't bother me if it gets heated. people can get fiery and disagree, especially about interesting and important things. No problem with that! Like you, I believe that what God requires of us is faith and faithfulness, not absolute and untainted knowledge of His nature (which I do not believe we are even capable of fully comprehending at any rate), and it is generally more constructive to find common ground where we can stand together than it is to seek out ways to pick each other apart. But I have always enjoyed hearing other perspectives. :iagree: Absolutely! Well put. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 humility is a far greater goal than being "right" ever will be. Very good point. A humble heart is a major attribute that draws us to God and causes us to want to meet his standards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tea Time Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Mind-boggling? Yes, and painful, sad, disheartening , discouraging. Perhaps this kind of confrontation where no one is listening to each other any more is why I no longer make a very good Christian, if I ever did. This reminds me of my dh's family: 6 siblings, 6 different belief systems. Choosing a church to take my 89-year-old MIL to during a family reunion is impossible. To pick one church would be to acknowledge that as the true church. It's so hard watching good, kind, lovely people get, well, ugly about what's right. This thread started with an interesting question. It's deteriorated. Sorry, I know. It's time for me to get off. :angelsad2: It is indeed sad! There are a lot of forces at work to tear families apart. It is a huge reason we chose to homeschool. Families have always struggled with differences, this is not new, but in many ways our culture has institutionalized it. Even in the churches we attend, we are torn apart into different age groups and different ministries and activities. How can we grow firm bonds if we are never together? We can't really. Divide and conquer. Again, not a new idea, but every age must find a way to fight it, I suppose. Thank goodness for homeschooling as it is a powerful strengthener of family! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyFourSons Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 (edited) I just wanted to be clear on whether or not it was REQUIRED. IOW, if there's a difference between how two people believe regarding those other things, does it effect their salvation? I was not trying to bash Carmen at all, btw. I love her, she's been an incredible friend to me, and (more importantly) I trust her. I trust her to tell me the truth and set me straight. That's why I asked her. I do appreciate your answer though, it covers everything I wanted to know. Thank you. I'm sorry that I misunderstood your intent, I hope you weren't offended. The topic of salvation is way out of my league, I was taught that Jesus is the source of our salvation, and what you do with that salvation (accept or reject) is up to the individual. In other words, I can't judge anyone but myself. IOW, I am not trying to tell anyone what is or is not required of them to gain salvation, but answer the question of what makes a someone a Christian by relating how the ancient church addressed the issue. My faith makes me curious about such topics, and exploring it in debates like this makes me feel closer to God. Other people have very different ways to feel close to God, and that is fine. I am just trying to explain what the doctrine of the Trinity is, and how it was and is considered essential to Christian faith by the majority of Christians in the world (Orthodox christians, Catholics, and the majority of Protestants). Belief in the Trinity is a sort of minimum requirement if you will. It is not the only essential aspect of Christianity, certainly there are many more. My only goal is to help people better understand one reason why Mormonism is not considered to be a Christain faith by the Catholic Church and other orthodox religions, because Mormonism does not teach that God and Jesus are one in being, but are seperate entities. I am not stating this to condemn anyone, or tell them they are wrong, just explain the situation. I am just trying to show what the Catholic stance is, and also illustrate that it is not a position born out of hate or prejudice. Thank you! Edited August 22, 2009 by MyFourSons Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 My faith makes me curious about such topics, and exploring it in debates like this makes me feel closer to God. :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MamaSheep Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 The question is, why would anyone "demand a more complex and mysterious 'deity' to worship"? To what end? I gather that historically speaking there were problems in the early Christian church with the Christians being looked down upon as having an overly simplistic view of metaphysical issues, such as the nature of God, whereas Greek philosophy was held up as a more sophisticated approach. Once Greek philosophy was applied more rigorously to Christian thought, and Christian theology was "developed" more fully, so to speak, Christian philosophers gained wider acceptance and respect among the community at large. I wish I had time to dig up some references and quotations, because it really is quite interesting to read about. From a traditional Christian perspective I imagine this would be looked at as a maturing of the doctrine, whereas I would view it more as a corrupting. Perhaps it is the same urge that compels people to demand complex systems of public education with complicated professional jargon, an overabundance of nonsensical administrative rules, requiring a plethora of certifications and gazoodles of funding, while looking down their noses at a mother sitting at a kitchen table with her child reading a library book and saying, "it just isn't that simple, it'll never work". I think we are rather more prone to oversimplify things and too prideful to admit there is anything beyond our understanding. And sometimes efforts to "simplify things" lead to even more complications. The Mormon faith (with a non-Trinitarian God) added a whole other book of scripture, and it is very, very complex if you want to fully grasp it. I don't even attempt to say what the Mormons believe because I really don't know. But complexity itself is NOT an argument against Mormon beliefs. Nor is complexity in itself an argument against trinitarianism. I just thought it was interesting how our viewpoints differed. Certainly both Mormonism and traditional Christianity have produced piles and piles of additional writings of various kinds. I suspect, just based on the time and number of authors involved, that the amount of additional writings on the traditional side would vastly outstrip the amount produced by Mormons. Mormonism has produced additional scripture, it is true, whereas more traditional forms of Christianity have more of a tendency, at least in my observation, to produce trendy self-help kinds of books, though there are certainly higher forms of contributions such as numerous creeds and catechisms. I suppose the relative value of the writings produced by the different groups and movements would be an interesting line of inquiry, though one that is not well suited to this sort of format, and not one likely to produce friendly feelings. My personal experience with the additional LDS scripture is that it teaches the same concepts found in the Bible, but has a tendency to bring additional clarity and precision to those concepts. So although there are more words, there is less confusion. It reminds me of an incident when I was a child and we had visitors over. One of the boys in the visiting family was quite unruly and his parents weren't really doing anything about it. My mother tried to strike a tactful balance between maintaining order and not telling the other adults how to parent their children by saying things to the child like, "At our house, children are not allowed to hit each other. The rule at our house is no throwing toys at each other. We do not allow biting at our house," and so forth. It went on like that the whole evening. Finally, the mother commented, "Wow, you sure do have a lot of rules at your house!" My mother always thought this was amusing because we really didn't have many rules, per se. All of the "rules" she'd enforced for this child were subcategories of one rule--be kind to one another. But since the child in question was apparently not familiar enough with that overarching idea to comply--the concept of "be kind" was evidently foreign to him--my mother had broken it down for him into more manageable chunks. I think Mormonism is somewhat similar. If you don't know the main themes it may seem quite complex, and as though there are "a lot of rules". But once you begin to see the patterns forming and start to understand how it all fits together into a whole, it's really not as complex as it looks. Really the "rules" boil down to love God with all your heart, might, mind and strength and your neighbor as yourself. The subcategories just teach us what that looks like and give us practice putting it into action in specific ways. [...snip...sometimes I just blather when I'm tired...sigh...continued....] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MamaSheep Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 [...continued...] Where humility is concerned, the Reformer (of anything) must always resist the temptation of pride as the idea of "rescuing the truth from unworthy hands" is a very seductive one. "Clean, elegant and simply stated" is not the same for everyone. I think physics is a bit too complicated, but to some people much of it really is "clean, elegant, simply stated truths," just not to me! I have to take a lot of it on faith. I look around and I see a world that is very complicated, so I am not surprised that there is a complex God, and I think it is quite humble to acknowledge that. Amazing how easy it is to flip these things back and forth though, isn't it? I can easily see both views in my mind. I remember this when I am seeking truth, and humility is a far greater goal than being "right" ever will be. I wish you could delve in, too, but I completely understand! I need to curb this habit come Monday, but I love stimulating conversation, and I can always find it on this board. It doesn't bother me if it gets heated. people can get fiery and disagree, especially about interesting and important things. No problem with that! :iagree: Absolutely! Well put. I agree with a great deal of what you say here. The idea of simplicity versus complexity is not, itself, necessarily a simple concept, or one that people with different backgrounds, perspectives, or talents will see in the same ways. I, too, see complexity in creation and believe in a complex God, though because we view God differently I suspect that both the simplicity and the complexity we "see" is not the same. One thing that has struck me about God's creation is that it is simultaneously BOTH simple AND complex. Take a daisy, for example. A three year-old can make a recognizable representation of a daisy in less than a minute using a crayon. A few loopy lines in a particular orientation to one another can quite adequately capture the "essense" of a daisy. Even in real life, a daisy does not appear overly complex--it's just a daisy, a rather plain, simple, ordinary flower. You can look at it and recognize it as such, and it can be an excellent addition to landscaping and bouquets with no greater knowledge of it than that. But if you look a little more closely, you discover that a daisy is actually a complex arrangement of many, many tiny flowers with specialized petals arranged in a very specific pattern. Additional investigation will show that each of these tiny, individual flowers is made up of different parts, such as the pistil and stamen, ovary, sepal, and so forth and so on. And, of course, the stem is made up of various types of vascular tissues and along with the roots, a whole other collection of tissues, move nutrients around within the plant in complex ways. And each of those structures and tissue types can be broken down to the cellular level where they are made up of various kinds of intercellular organs and other little fiddly bits. (Can you tell my dad was a botonist and I only sort of paid attention? lol) And the cellular materials can be broken down into molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles. And at all of these levels there is an elegant organization, a dance of less complex bits that group together in specified ways to form that which is more complex, and yet which still can be understood at a basic, simple, ordinary level--it's "just" a daisy. It has its own kind of complexity that is natural to it and that meshes with the complexities of all the other creations that surround it, and with which it interacts. If we decided that a daisy is really just too plain and ordinary a flower, and we really want something fancier and more exotic, like an orchid, because after all this is supposed to be a "bouquet" not a handful of weeds, and we want to impress our neighbors, or whatever, we COULD glue on some petals from another species, and trim the leaves to another shape, and plant the roots in bark rather than in soil, as orchids like it that way. We'd wind up with something that was certainly more complex than a plain, ordinary daisy, but it's an artificial, unsustainable complexity that breaks down when explored at any depth. So there's complexity, and then there's complexity, if you see what I mean. I am sure you and I would disagree as to which type of complexity is represented in which belief system, but it is interesting to contemplate, nonetheless. To me at least. I'm with you on physics. But part of the difference there is that the complexity is something that YOU AND I don't understand, but which is, ultimately able to be understood, if not by us then by others. And I suspect that if you and I put our minds to it, and had sufficient time, good materials, and excellent instructors, even we could comprehend physics. We may not understand the whole of it, but we can see that there IS a structure that makes sense, even if we don't see the whole thing at all levels of complexity. Actually, even the best physicists are still hitting areas where they don't get it YET, even though they can see that there's "something" there to understand. That's how I believe God is. We don't know everything yet, but ultimately God is inherently understandable, once we have sufficient experience, knowledge, etc. to understand Him. This is life eternal, to KNOW God. So God HAS to be knowable. Of course, this is a long-term project which will not be accomplished in this mortal life of ours, and which is only attainable through God's revealing Himself to us--but there is something THERE that is knowable, even though we don't yet "get it" all. It is beyond OUR humble understanding, but it is fundamentally understandable. The trinitarian concept of God is wrapped tightly around the idea that God is unknowable, completely "other" than man, than creation, than anything we could ever begin to conceive of. It is not merely something we "don't" understand, it's something we fundamentally "can't" understand. If it were understandable, it would not be a "mystery". If God were not a "mystery", He (or It) would not BE God. It is not merely beyond our understanding, it is fundamentally not susceptible to understanding. But to me, that just does not mesh with what God has said about Himself. I completely agree with you, though, that there is humility in acknowledging the complexity of God and His creation. But I think that there is pride in tacking on our own little bits of fillagree to fancy it up in order to show off how humble we are in comparison. Anyway, thanks for the interesting discussion. I'll try to peek in again soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usetoschool Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 I just wanted to address your comparison of the Eucharsit to the ceremonies that take place within the Temple, as that is a very common comparison, but not entirely accurate. Although you must be a member of the Catholic church and be without sin to recieve holy communion, any one of any faith or denomonation is still free to enter any Catholic church and attend the mass, watch the rituals and ceremonies and participate up to the point of actually eating the host and drinking the wine. Which is where the analogy begins...you can watch the eucharist all day and it won't do a thing for you - only those who are worthy can partake. Watching and listening in the Temple IS partaking. So, only those who are worthy can partake, by watching. The most holy spaces in Catholocism and the most holy ritual, the Eucharist, can be witnessed by anyone on any given day. This is different from Mormon Temples, as Mormons are not allowed to enter certain parts of the Temple, or participate in the different ceremonies, without written permission No, it doesn't have anything to do with permission, it is an interview where you declare your worthiness and obedience to commandments. I don't receive permission from my bishop, he just acts as the priesthood authority who verifies my responses, whether I declare myself worthy. He is the Savior's representative and authorized to act on His behalf in determining worthiness. According to my knowledge, you can correct me if I am wrong, the Temple reccomend is given by a bishop and is dependent upon an interview where the conduct and the tithing of the individual is examined. Non-Mormons can NEVER enter certain areas of the Temple and can never witness let alone participate in the rituals that take place there. True, but it isn't about curiousity - there is no reason for you to, it is an ordinance that builds on previous ordinances and committments. I've taken a tour of the Temple of Salt Lake, and so I realize there are certain areas that allow tourists and visitors and people without Temple recommends, but most of the Temple requires a written permission which is only given to practicing Mormons who contribute financially to their church. It isn't about money. And tithing is a principle in the Bible. Tithing is just one of the commandments. In fact, Mormons aren't even allowed to discuss certain details of what goes on inside a Temple with non Mormons. True, because it is sacred and because it really wouldn't mean anything to someone who hadn't participated anyway. This means that you if are not a Mormon, and your son converts to Mormonism and is married in the Temple, you are not allowed to attend the ceremony or fully know what went on. I know people who have experienced this sad situation. True. And I understand the pain of parents in that situation, but with love and meaningful conversations children can help their parents understand the importance of the ordinance. We believe that the only way a family unit will be together forever is through ordinances performed by proper priesthood authority in the temple. But again because it is a sacred, spiritual experience. You could probably find everything about the Temple somewhere online, read it and think - eh, what is the big deal. It is a spiritual experience and without that spirit it is just words, so not secret, sacred and separate from the world. And requiring a certain level of spiritual maturity and committment. In Catholocism, anyone can attend the ceremony, even if they don't fully participate in it by eating the Eucharist. Exactly, they don't participate in it. They don't partake. Watching does nothing. However, the temple isn't about eating, it is about learning so watching is partaking. So, these are two very different set of circumstances. While recieving sacrament of Communion is reserved for practicing Catholics, you can still witness the sacrament being taken by others. The church itself and the rituals and ceremonies are open to the public. The most holy of all of our spaces are available to anyone, because sinners are at times in most need of God's grace. If Mormonism was open in this way, there might be less stereotyping and prejudice. Anyone is welcome at any time to attend a church service - that is where the gospel is preached and the sacrament is passed to the congregation. The other responses you made to my remarks seem to be a matter of opinion, and we both seem to be pretty firm in our own interpretations, so I will leave the argument at that. I have stated the historical case of the Catholic church, and you have also stated your case very well. Thank you for the lively debate, it has been interesting and fun! Personally I think there is more in religion that is similar and unites people. I understand that the view of the Trinity is an important theological matter - but as far as how we serve the Savior and our brothers and sisters, there really is no difference. Thanks for being patient with my wordy explanations. Janet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 About complexity and the Trinity: http://www.watchtower.org/e/ti/article_04.htm There is information on Plato and how he influenced the Trinity at this link. This is an article about the Trinity written by Jehovah's Witnesses. You can do further research to verify (or not) the information presented, but I see nothing wrong with it being a starting point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scgirl816 Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 Forgive me for intruding. I come in with the highest respect and regard for you all. I am learning so much on this forum about homeschooling my children I am just crazy curious and wondered if some of you gals might not mind answering some questions that have been itching at me for a while! I have never read up on the Mormon beliefs. I've heard snippets about the church and belief system, but I've never had anyone close enough to me to ask, and some of you offered to answer questions if they were asked... I really am interested in knowing answers from people who actually know and not from non-Mormons who speculate or "have heard" the answers as has been the case until, hopefully, now. 1) A friend of mine visited one of your churches for an open public visit and they had to wear protective "booties" over their shoes. I was wondering why? 2) Why are there rooms that you can't go into? What's in there? 3) What planet does God live on? (I don't even know why this is an issue...I've just heard people say, Ask a Mormon what planet they believe God lives on...so I'm asking.:)) 4) Do you believe Satan and Jesus are brothers, and, if so, why? I have been captured by this conversation tonight. Everyone responding on all sides is so well-versed and knowledgable about their beliefs. I am impressed. Thanks for indulging my curiosity. I just thought ...here is my chance to get answers from the source! Thanks girls! Rebekah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cougarmom4 Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 Rebekah, I am always willing to answer questions...especially when asked in such a respectful way. :001_smile: I'm sure some of the other LDS on this board will jump in to offer their perspectives as well. 1-"booties" over shoes--This was at one of our temple open houses. We have chapels in neighborhoods all over the world--this is where our Sunday worship services are held and where we meet weekly for youth activities and such. These are always open to the public and friends of other faiths are always welcome to join us in our services. Our temples are different, however, and we use them for other types of sacred work--marriages, baptisms, and additional learning throughout the week (in fact, they are closed on Sundays). They are not large cathedrals intended for large gatherings--but built of many smaller rooms. When a temple is first built, they are open to the public to tour so that others might have a chance to see what is inside and to learn about what we do there. When they are dedicated they are then considered sacred & holy places where only members who are living gospel principles (according to our church doctrine, of course) go to make further commitments of living the gospel. The purpose of the white booties is that during the open house, thousands...sometimes tens of thousands...of visitors tour the temple. The white booties simply protect the carpet. :) 2-I'm not certain where the thought of rooms we can't go into has come from. Hmm...there are men's dressing rooms I've never been in, administrative offices I've never been in, and there are rooms currently in use by others that I couldn't walk into. Each room has a purpose and is used during what we call 'ordinances,' so to walk in would interrupt. Perhaps this is referring to the fact that not all members of our church can enter the temple after it is dedicated. This is true and I mentioned the reason in question #1 above...we make certain promises in the temple with our Heavenly Father of living His commandments. We have to be spiritually ready to make those covenants...if one does not accept the gospel or doctrine, one obviously is not ready to commit in deeper ways. I like to explain it in this way: one doesn't start learning math with Algebra 2...there are foundational concepts to master (addition, subtraction, mult, div, algebra concepts) before one can grasp deeper concepts in Algebra 2 or even Calculus. 3-Okay, I'm going to have to admit that I'm not certain how to answer this one--what planet does God live on? Let me get back to you on that one...I'll do a little research into our doctrine and see if I have an official answer for you. :) I know He lives and loves me...and He hears and answers me when I pray...that's enough for me. 4-Satan and Jesus as brothers & why. This one might require a little more background information here. We believe that before we came to this earth, we lived together with our Heavenly Father as His spirit children. He presented a plan to us...one that involved us coming to earth to gain bodies (so we could be like Him...He had a body) and to learn & grow through life's experiences. As part of His plan, He needed someone to help us...there was one of His spirit children who offered to come to earth and make sure all of us returned to Heavenly Father by forcing us to do things--without any choice or agency--and asking for honor and glory for doing so. There was another who offered to come to earth, do the will of the Father, allow us agency, show us the way back and give Him (the Father) all glory and honor. Heavenly Father chose the second...whom we call our Savior, Jesus Christ. He came to earth as the Father's literal Son, born of the virgin Mary...doing the will of the Father, setting a perfect example for the rest of us to follow, suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane for our sins, was crucified, and overcame all in His resurrection. Because of Him, we too will be resurrected and have the opportunity to return to live with Heavenly Father. The 'other' spirit child I referred to previously was cast out of Heavenly Father's presence when he rebelled against Him--he came to be known as Satan or Lucifer. He was not born on the earth and did not receive a body of flesh and bone...yet his influence of evil is felt in many ways in our world. His goal is to thwart our Heavenly Father's plan, by turning us away from Him. And so, yes...we do believe that both Satan and Christ (and you and I, by the way...all of us) are spirit children of our Heavenly Father. Jesus Christ is, however, the Only Begotten of the Father...the only perfect One to walk the face of the earth...our Savior and Redeemer...the only One to show us the way to return to Heavenly Father. Our understanding of Heavenly Father's plan (which we refer to in our church as the Plan of Salvation or the Plan of Happiness) comes from latter-day revelation...through living prophets of God. The prophet's words are recorded and we accept this as scripture--intended to clarify confusion that is apparent in the world around us. How is it that so many of us can study the same Bible, but yet find so many different truths? We believe that Heavenly Father still talks to our prophet today and guides His church according to His plan. Whew...I've ended up typing a lot of information in here! Sorry if I went on a little too long. I appreciate your asking questions for clarification. This is the type of learning and sharing of information I enjoy being a part of. I, too, like to ask friends of other faiths to share or clarify their beliefs to increase my understanding...not to convert me or 'bash' with me or even to debate...but to enlighten my mind with understanding. If you have further questions or curiosities, you're welcome to pm me, if you'd rather. I'd also suggest mormon.org or lds.org for official information about our beliefs. And now...I really need to get to bed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 And now...I really need to get to bed! I can agree with that! ;) I can't believe how late it is! I have been reading up on Orthodox beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reya Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 (edited) I have a relationship with my mom, and that doesn't make her God. :-) Couldn't resist.... (Logical fallacy in the question!) In other variants: I could call my desk Mom, but it wouldn't make it so. And you could call your mom Mom, but it wouldn't make her my mom. Etc, etc. Edited August 23, 2009 by Reya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MamaSheep Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 Forgive me for intruding. I come in with the highest respect and regard for you all. I am learning so much on this forum about homeschooling my children I am just crazy curious and wondered if some of you gals might not mind answering some questions that have been itching at me for a while! I have never read up on the Mormon beliefs. I've heard snippets about the church and belief system, but I've never had anyone close enough to me to ask, and some of you offered to answer questions if they were asked... I really am interested in knowing answers from people who actually know and not from non-Mormons who speculate or "have heard" the answers as has been the case until, hopefully, now. 1) A friend of mine visited one of your churches for an open public visit and they had to wear protective "booties" over their shoes. I was wondering why? 2) Why are there rooms that you can't go into? What's in there? 3) What planet does God live on? (I don't even know why this is an issue...I've just heard people say, Ask a Mormon what planet they believe God lives on...so I'm asking.:)) 4) Do you believe Satan and Jesus are brothers, and, if so, why? I have been captured by this conversation tonight. Everyone responding on all sides is so well-versed and knowledgable about their beliefs. I am impressed. Thanks for indulging my curiosity. I just thought ...here is my chance to get answers from the source! Thanks girls! Rebekah Well, I don't want to step on Cougarmom4's toes, but I can't sleep so I'll take a quick crack at #3 if that's ok. "Ask a Mormon what planet they believe God lives on..." would probably be a reference to a few verses of our scripture which our critics get a great deal more mileage out of than we do ourselves. In our book of scripture which we call The Pearl of Great Price, there's a book we believe to contain some writings of Abraham that were not included in the Bible. In it, there is a description of a vision that Abraham had, in which, among other things, God shows Abraham the organization of heavenly bodies--stars, moons, planets, etc.--mostly the stars. One of the points being made is that Abraham's "seed" will be as numerous as these stars that he is being shown, which is quite consistent with the Biblical account. Another point being made to Abraham is that all things are governed by laws and operate within a structural heirarchy, and each part of creation has its place and moves according to the laws that govern it. The sun, moon, and stars are given as examples. The moon is above the earth, and the sun is "greater" than the moon. Abraham is also told that although men use the sun and moon to reckon time on Earth, time actually passes differently on these heavenly bodies than on Earth because their movement is at a different speed and their placement in space is different, giving them days, nights, and years that differ in length from those on Earth. And just as the moon is above Earth, and the sun is "greater" than the moon in light, there are additional heavenly bodies that are beyond, or "above" the sun and the moon, and that are "greater" than these. The "greatest" of these "great lights", or stars, Abraham is told, is called Kolob, and it is the "greatest" because it is nearest the throne of God and God has set it there "to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest" (Abr. 3:9). Also he is told that God uses it to "reckon" time. It's all rather convoluted, from an astronomical standpoint. It is not clear exactly what is meant by "the order" of that on which Abraham is standing (presumably Earth, but of what "order" is Earth? This is not explained. Or it could even mean the galaxy or universe on which Abraham is standing, I suppose.). It is also not clear what is meant by the statement that Kolob "governs" things of that "order". From the context I could guess that it means anything from the influence of gravitational pull on a long chain of interwoven events among astronomical bodies, which keeps the Earth and other planets in its "order" spinning in their proper spacial locations, to merely that God uses it to tell what time it is on Earth--or even to control the flow of time on earth. It's really hard to say what it means. Statements are made, but they are not explained. It is also not clear exactly what is meant by it being "near" to the throne of God. The context would suggest that "the throne of God" is a specific location, which meshes with the LDS concept of God as a being with a body of flesh and bone like that of Jesus Christ. Such a God would exist in a particular location, as Jesus (whom we believe to be the same being as Jehovah of the Old Testament, but embodied rather than a disembodied spirit) existed in the location of Bethlehem, or Jerusalem. The great Creator standing in a specific spot on a mountain, teaching people. There is nothing specific said about the location of God's throne, however, only that Kolob is "near" it, wherever and whatever it is. It seems logical in some ways to say it could be on a planet, but to me it seems equally logical to say that it could be a place that exists separate from this universe and that the star Kolob is the nearest great star in this universe to that location and is set to "govern" the universe. But again, it's not spelled out. It's intriguing reading, from an astronomical viewpoint, but it's not very specific about astronomical information. That's because the points being made are not scientific, but spiritual. God shows Abraham an innumerable procession of stars and planets spinning in their respective orders, all created by Him and all governed by Him and Abraham sees that there is no end to God's creations. Then God tells Abraham that Abraham's seed will be as numerous as the stars. God then explains that as one star is greater than another star, so is one spirit greater than another spirit, each in its appointed sphere, and that just as Kolob is the greatest of all the stars, so God is the greatest of all spirits, and God governs all. But SINCE it's not all spelled out, the LDS (aka Mormon) church does not take any particular official position on what all these vague references MEAN. It just lets it stand as is, and allows people to ponder it and come to their own conclusions without trying to fill in the gaps. And again, the important aspects are seen, really, as being God's covenant with Abraham and God's supremacy over all. To us, things like where "Kolob" is, or where the throne of God might be located, are interesting conundrums to ponder but really have no bearing on anything of any importance--sort of like whether or not Adam and Eve had bellybuttons. It's not something God has chosen to reveal much about, and it certainly is not a central doctrinal issue, or involved in any way in obtaining salvation. Adam and Eve either had bellybuttons or they didn't, and I can see arguments in both directions. One way is true and the other not. And it would be interesting to know. But ultimately it is of no real importance whatsoever. Same with the location of Kolob and that of the throne of God. It would be interesting to know, but God hasn't chosen to tell us, and it's not something we really need to know. HOWEVER, some of our critics like to form their own extrapolations from these ideas and CALL them Mormon theology and then make fun of this "theology" and us for "believing" it. In nearly all instances of this that I have seen they claim that we believe that God lives on a planet named Kolob. To me, this is very sloppy scholarship since it's quite clear if you actually READ the passages that Kolob is a star, not a planet, and that it is "near" God's throne, not that God is living on it. It doesn't actually say anywhere that God lives on a planet at all. Maybe He does. Jesus certainly did for a while, and we expect that He will do so again. Jesus said that He does what He has seen His Father do. And we do believe in a corporeal God who exists SOMEWHERE, rather than just permeating everything like a fine mist (though His power and knowledge certainly penetrate everything). So to me, personally, it would not be a particularly surprising thing. But the answer to your question is that actual LDS doctrine does not specify a planet that God lives on, though you will very likely be told by outside sources that we think God lives on planet Kolob. But really, if you ask a Mormon what planet God lives on, the Mormon will most likely take it as an indication that you know very little about Mormon beliefs, and that what little you do know comes from sources that use very sloppy scholarship if not outright intentional deception. Or else they'll have to go look it up and try to figure out what on earth you might be referring to because although certain "critics" get quite enthusiastic about the implications of "planet" Kolob, it's a) not a big deal to us and therefore not something we discuss or even think about much, b) referred to only tangentially in a scriptural discussion that focuses on entirely other subjects, and c) not even a planet. HTH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyFourSons Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 (edited) Personally I think there is more in religion that is similar and unites people. I understand that the view of the Trinity is an important theological matter - but as far as how we serve the Savior and our brothers and sisters, there really is no difference. Thanks for being patient with my wordy explanations. Janet I agree with your quote above, but the differences between Mormonism and Catholocism, although not always obvious on the surface, are so great that the Catholic church does not consider Mormonism to be a true from of Christianity. I do not mean this as a negative or a slam, I just hope to explain the issues to foster mutual understanding as this is to the benefit of all. You say that "watching isn't experiencing," and that being able to watch the Eucharist is pointless if you can't actually eat and drink. But watching is a form of experience, and so not pointless. If you were watching your sons basketball game, you might not be on the court, but the crowd is still experiencing the game. If they aren't, why bother going? You may not get the full exprience when you don't actually eat the Eucharist, but you have acted as a witness and you still have the ability to say the prayers and feel the presence of God within the church. You can also see the meaning behind the actions, as they are explained through the prayers and scripture readings. And if you have any questions about the rituals, anyone is happy to discuss them with you. If nothing else, you have gained an understading of what goes on during a Mass, which can lead to greater acceptance for other faiths. Also, according to a true Catholic perspective, just being in the presence of the Eucharist is a very holy and sacred experience, the most holy that there is. We believe even just the presence can fill you with Grace, and this presence is available for all people of all faiths. The mass is open to the public. This is much different from the temple, which only Mormons can enter and only Mormoms can know what goes on. I have no problem with a church deciding who can or can not participate fully, I understand that it is important to keep certain rituals and practices holy by making sure that people are worthy to participate. The Catholic church wants only people in a state of grace to recieve holy communion. But I do not see why those who are not able to fully participate should not be allowed to witness the rituals, let alone enter the building. Catholocism allows even those who are not Christian to participate to some degree, Mormonism does not. So, although the comparison of the Eucharist and the Temple endowments seems appropriate on the surface, and many Mormons see it as an excellent argument, when you look at the issue at a deeper level they really are not the same. We do not place any limits on who can enter the church and witness our rituals, or who can have knowledge of those rituals. Your church only lets those who tithe and belong to the church enter their most holy places and witness their rituals, and you are not even allowed to discuss them. It is also very appropriate to describe a temple recommend as written permission. Logically, it is a piece of paper that says you meet the necessary requirements to enter the Temple, could you enter without the piece of paper? Maybe it is not permission from your Bishop, but it is a form of permission from your Church. Just as you need written permission to drive, a driver's license. The government is essentially saying you have taken the test and you meet the requirements needed and have permission to drive, and the license if proof of that permission. The Temple reccomend is proof that you are worthy to enter the temple based on the criteria set up by your church, and so it is basically your church giving you written permission to enter the Temple. It is like a license to enter the temple, which is an appropriate analogy since you are not allowed to drive without a license and you are not allowed to enter the Temple without the Temple recommend. Even this could be seen as acceptable to me, if I could read about the rituals myself. You say you aren't allowed to explain the rituals of the church, but that it wouldn't matter because they would have no meaning to me. Then explain the meaning to me. I am a fairly intelligent person, I think I may be able to figure it out. But you can't, your church won't let you. The only way I could gain that knowledge is to convert to Mormonism, get a temple reccomend and enter the Temple for myself. It seems like the information should be available up front, so you can make an informed decision about your faith before you convert. My church has no hidden knowledge or ceremonies, everything is available up front to anyone who is curious. I love to explain the meaning behind the Eucharist and the biblical and historical reasoning behind it, along with all the other teachings and rituals of the church (although I am not that well informed or eloquent). That is what evangelizing is all about. But I don't have to, you can witness the mass for yourself, the words and scripture and prayers in the mass explains it quite well, and so even just witnessing the ritual will give you an understanding of what it is all about. You can also go to the library and read a book on any and all aspects of Catholocism, it has all been written down in one book called the catechism to make it easy for people to understand what the church believes, does and teaches. But this is something the Mormon church won't give you a chance to do when it comes to the temple endowments: research and observe for yourself to gain understanding. To an outsider, it can seem that your religion is partly based on recieving secret information that can only be imparted to those who are deemed worthy, and the process essentially controlled by the Church. This is not a slam, but it is what the situation appears to be when you look at the facts. You may not feel your religion is like that, but it is hard for people on the outside to make sound judgments when they aren't allowed to have all the information. When people won't discuss their rituals and beliefs with outsiders, it can breed mistrust and ill will. If Mormonism were more open, it would benefit the Church greatly, as it would cut down on the amount of stereotyping that goes on. I am not trying to present Mormonism in a negative light, I have respect for my Mormon friends and families. There are many beautiful things about Mormonism that I love, and I realize that there are negative things to be found in any church. My goal is just to counter your arguments and comparisons of my church to Mormonism, as I do not think they are entirely accurate. I wish to make a fair comparison based on the actual practices of the two churches. I hope I have not offended anyone. Edited August 23, 2009 by MyFourSons Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie in Austin Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 MyFourSons, I wrote something about the issue of Mormons not allowing non-Mormons into temples in response to a TV program that claimed to show part of the temple ritual. You can read it here if you are interested. Er, links aren't working for me today. The link is here: http://tiny.cc/KTJwX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 I want to thank the moderator for keeping the thread open and deleting specific posts. Thank you! The context would suggest that "the throne of God" is a specific location, which meshes with the LDS concept of God as a being with a body of flesh and bone like that of Jesus Christ. Such a God would exist in a particular location, as Jesus (whom we believe to be the same being as Jehovah of the Old Testament, but embodied rather than a disembodied spirit) existed in the location of Bethlehem, or Jerusalem. The great Creator standing in a specific spot on a mountain, teaching people. There is nothing specific said about the location of God's throne, however, only that Kolob is "near" it, wherever and whatever it is. It seems logical in some ways to say it could be on a planet, but to me it seems equally logical to say that it could be a place that exists separate from this universe and that the star Kolob is the nearest great star in this universe to that location and is set to "govern" the universe. But again, it's not spelled out. I am so confused. It looks like Mormons believe (all that follows): God started out as a man. God started out as a disembodied spirit and became a man. Almighty God is different from and greater than Jesus. Jehovah (repeatedly called Almighty God in the scriptures) is the same as Jesus. He started out as Jehovah and worked his way up to being Jesus. Somebody set me straight! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cougarmom4 Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 My goal is just to counter your arguments. Ah, herein lies the difference. My goal is NOT to argue or debate; yours is. You've stated several times that is your purpose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MamaSheep Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 (edited) I want to thank the moderator for keeping the thread open and deleting specific posts. Thank you! I am so confused. It looks like Mormons believe (all that follows): God started out as a man. God started out as a disembodied spirit and became a man. Almighty God is different from and greater than Jesus. Jehovah (repeatedly called Almighty God in the scriptures) is the same as Jesus. He started out as Jehovah and worked his way up to being Jesus. Somebody set me straight! Sorry for the confusion. I'll try to explain more clearly. We believe in three separate and distinct divine beings who operate in a relationship of perfect unity. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Together, this Godhead presides over all of creation. Any or all of them can rightly be called "God". Within the Godhead, the Father presides over the other two. The other two members of the Godhead follow His leadership (Jesus repeatedly said that he came not to do His own thing, but to obey the Father, submit to the will of the Father, etc.), but they are all equally "divine" -- sort of like three adult human beings serving in a committee are all equally adult, but only one of them is the chairman. But this is largely academic since they are always in perfect agreement anyway, and work toward the same goals using the same divine power, etc. But each of them has a role within the The Father presides, the Son is our Savior and advocate, the Holy Ghost is a teacher, guide and comforter. We believe that all three members of the Godhead are divine, eternally existing spirits, but that the spirits of the Father and the Son are housed within physical bodies, after the image of which our own physical bodies are modeled, though their bodies are perfect, glorified and immortal, whereas ours are imperfect, subject to corruption, and mortal. The Holy Ghost, however, does not have a physical body. We believe that "in the beginning", as the Bible puts it, or the beginning of the creation of the Earth, the Godhead was already in existence and all three members of the Godhead were divine beings just as they are now. However, at that point the Son did not have a physical body, only the Father did. The Father presided over the creation of the world, but the actual work of creation was done primarily by the Son, who is the being referred to in the Old Testament as "Jehovah" (among other names). Jehovah was/is properly referred to as "Almighty God" (the same title could also be properly applied to the Father, and/or to the Holy Ghost, and even to the three beings as a group really) because He was/is both God, and Almighty, even though He willingly submits to the Almighty Father's authority and leadership. At the appointed time, this divine Spirit called Jehovah took a physical body like that of His Father. At that point, he was given the name Jesus, even though He was still the same being as He was when He was Jehovah in Old Testament times. He's the same divine spirit, just clothed in a physical body. We believe that Mary, Jesus' mother was a virgin at the time of his conception and birth, that the literal, physical father of Jesus was THE Father, and that the conception was managed in some miraculous way that is not specifically spelled out for us, by the Holy Ghost. Jesus then proceeded through his mortal life and ministry, eventually laying down His life to atone for our sins (at which point His divine spirit was separated from His physical body), and then took it up again in the resurrection in its glorified, perfected, immortal state. So yes, God (Jehovah) became a man (Jesus), but in no way did He ever stop being Jehovah at any time. He was God before he had a body, He was God while his body was mortal, and He is God with His body in a glorified, resurrected state. As for "starting out", that is a much more complicated subject, and one about which there is not a great deal of information. In Mormon belief, it is not really possible to "start out" as a man versus "starting out" as a disembodied spirit. By definition, a "man" (meaning human being) is a previously existing spirit housed within a physical body. I can't see how, within LDS thought, a being could "start" as a "man" before he was a "disembodied spirit", though certainly he can be a disembodied spirit AFTER having a body, and indeed this is what happens at death. Probably "unembodied" would be more accurate a term to use for before a body is obtained, and "disembodied" would be after the spirit leaves the body, and I suppose at resurrection you could call it "re-embodied". But at any rate, the spirit is the 'core' of a person, so to speak, whereas the body is merely a vehicle for it. There is the question of how the Father came to have a physical body, and we don't have a specific answer to that. It clearly happened before the creation of the world and God has not revealed very much about that time. However, Joseph Smith explained it by saying that, "God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did...". (This is not considered scripture, btw, just to be clear.) This makes sense to me, considering that Jesus said things like, "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise," and "...as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;" (see John 5:19, 26). If the Son does only what He has seen the Father do, it follows that the Son has seen the Father take up a physical body as the Son did. It does not follow that the Father "started out" as a mortal, sinful "man", because that is not how it worked for the Son. The Son was divine before taking on a physical body, so it follows logically that the Father would have been also. Regarding "working his way up"....well, I guess I've already explained some of this, in that Jesus was already God and a member of the Godhead before being born on Earth, so there was nothing really to "work his way up" TO. Luke tells us that as a child, Jesus "...grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him," and that, "...Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man..." (Luke 2:40, 52) but this is not the same thing as working his way up to being God. He was already God. Does that clear any of it up? Edited August 23, 2009 by MamaSheep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 Thanks Amy. It is easier to understand with one person spelling it all out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MamaSheep Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 Thanks Amy. It is easier to understand with one person spelling it all out. No problem. Would you be willing to explain the JW view of God and Jesus? I have the impression that the belief is that Jesus is not God, but the Son of God and that he got that position by merit of his personal righteousness during his life, but I also know I could be totally off base on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tea Time Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 (edited) ...Greek philosophy was held up as a more sophisticated approach. Once Greek philosophy was applied more rigorously to Christian thought, and Christian theology was "developed" more fully, so to speak, Christian philosophers gained wider acceptance and respect among the community at large.... I am going to address this on a post made by Loved as this is too long ............. Nor is complexity in itself an argument against trinitarianism. I just thought it was interesting how our viewpoints differed. Yes... I pointed that out, but complexity was the argument you gave, and you are giving it again, but it is not valid, and the idea of the Trinity is not that complex, but rather (as I described it in my previous post) beautiful and elegant and very helpful in understanding God's creation of Man and Woman. The burden is on the Reformer to support his allegations that the Church is in apostasy. Schism is sin, too. Certainly both Mormonism and traditional Christianity have produced piles and piles of additional writings of various kinds. I suspect, just based on the time and number of authors involved, that the amount of additional writings on the traditional side would vastly outstrip the amount produced by Mormons..But Catholicism has hundreds of years of time for writing and thinking on the issues, so yes, there is a lot of writing. Mormonism has produced additional scripture,This is HUGE, not easily dismissed. it is true, whereas more traditional forms of Christianity have more of a tendency, at least in my observation, to produce trendy self-help kinds of books, though there are certainly higher forms of contributions such as numerous creeds and catechisms. I suppose the relative value of the writings produced by the different groups and movements would be an interesting line of inquiry, though one that is not well suited to this sort of format, and not one likely to produce friendly feelings. Personally, I think there is way too much superfluous Christian writing today, but it is not Scripture, and people speak to each other in various ways that may help individuals, I don't know. I think a lot of it is self promotion. This is why I am interested in Classical Education, because I see the degradation of Church history as adding to this tendency. Is the Mormon Church free of this problem? My personal experience with the additional LDS scripture is that it teaches the same concepts found in the Bible, but has a tendency to bring additional clarity and precision to those concepts. This thread kind of shows there is plenty of confusion. Just as much as one might find over the Eucharist or the Trinity. So although there are more words, there is less confusion. It reminds me of an incident when I was a child and we had visitors over. One of the boys in the visiting family was quite unruly and his parents weren't really doing anything about it. My mother tried to strike a tactful balance between maintaining order and not telling the other adults how to parent their children by saying things to the child like, "At our house, children are not allowed to hit each other. ...................... But once you begin to see the patterns forming and start to understand how it all fits together into a whole, it's really not as complex as it looks. Really the "rules" boil down to love God with all your heart, might, mind and strength and your neighbor as yourself. The subcategories just teach us what that looks like and give us practice putting it into action in specific ways. This whole thing could be written in support of Traditional, orthodox belief just fine. As I said, it is a seductive idea to "get it right where others have gotten it wrong," to see or do what others have "failed" to see or do. [...snip...sometimes I just blather when I'm tired...sigh...continued....]Gee, not me! I never do that! (sarcasm:tongue_smilie:) [...continued...]I agree with a great deal of what you say here. The idea of simplicity versus complexity is not, itself, necessarily a simple concept, or one that people with different backgrounds, perspectives, or talents will see in the same ways. I, too, see complexity in creation and believe in a complex God, though because we view God differently I suspect that both the simplicity and the complexity we "see" is not the same. One thing that has struck me about God's creation is that it is simultaneously BOTH simple AND complex. Take a daisy, for example. A three year-old can make a recognizable representation of a daisy in less than a minute using a crayon. A few loopy lines in a particular orientation to one another can quite adequately capture the "essense" of a daisy. Even in real life, a daisy does not appear overly complex--it's just a daisy, a rather plain, simple, ordinary flower. You can look at it and recognize it as such, and it can be an excellent addition to landscaping and bouquets with no greater knowledge of it than that. But if you look a little more closely, you discover that a daisy is actually a complex arrangement of many, many tiny flowers with specialized petals arranged in a very specific pattern. ........................................ We'd wind up with something that was certainly more complex than a plain, ordinary daisy, but it's an artificial, unsustainable complexity that breaks down when explored at any depth. So there's complexity, and then there's complexity, if you see what I mean. I am sure you and I would disagree as to which type of complexity is represented in which belief system, but it is interesting to contemplate, nonetheless. To me at least. I'm with you on physics. But part of the difference there is that the complexity is something that YOU AND I don't understand, but which is, ultimately able to be understood, if not by us then by others. And I suspect that if you and I put our minds to it, and had sufficient time, good materials, and excellent instructors, even we could comprehend physics. We may not understand the whole of it, but we can see that there IS a structure that makes sense, even if we don't see the whole thing at all levels of complexity. Actually, even the best physicists are still hitting areas where they don't get it YET, even though they can see that there's "something" there to understand. But plenty of people in history HAVE SEEN what the Trinity teaches. Some didn't get it, so they tossed it out after centuries of belief (I stress some, because I don't think many of the original reformers did not see the Trinity as understandable). That's how I believe God is. We don't know everything yet, but ultimately God is inherently understandable, once we have sufficient experience, knowledge, etc. to understand Him. ..................... It is beyond OUR humble understanding, but it is fundamentally understandable. The trinitarian concept of God is wrapped tightly around the idea that God is unknowable, completely "other" than man, than creation, than anything we could ever begin to conceive of. It is not merely something we "don't" understand, it's something we fundamentally "can't" understand. If it were understandable, it would not be a "mystery". If God were not a "mystery", He (or It) would not BE God. It is not merely beyond our understanding, it is fundamentally not susceptible to understanding. No, this is all your take on it, and it very much ignores what I wrote in my post about mankind and the image of God. But it does hold God is "other than creation" as much as the potter is different than the pot. That is true. Again, the Trinitarian God is not impossible to understand, it is for some people a mystery, much like physics is a mystery to some people, but that was my whole point. I do get the Trinity. So have many, many others. I suggest C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton if you want some explanation of the idea. But to me But not to everyone, not even close, that just does not mesh with what God has said about Himself. I completely agree with you, though, that there is humility in acknowledging the complexity of God and His creation. But I think that there is pride in tacking on our own little bits of fillagree to fancy it up in order to show off how humble we are in comparison. But the fact is that we all do that, and I certainly fail to see where the Mormon faith or any other has fixed that problem. Rather than focus on the silly stuff man has attached, I prefer to see where various faiths have continued to keep the basic truths. I certainly think Christianity has done so to an amazing degree. God's grace in action. (The bold part, obviously this is not really accurate. I should do this, but I don't always, I admit my own hypocrisy and ask your forgiveness!) Anyway, thanks for the interesting discussion. I'll try to peek in again soon. I had to take out a lot of your post to make this fit. Please forgive. I keep getting logged out so I can't format any better right now. The intent is not to truncate your argument. Sorry! Also, I keep finding errors in my remarks. This is getting hard to follow. Sorry for that, too. Edited August 23, 2009 by Tea Time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tea Time Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 (edited) About complexity and the Trinity: http://www.watchtower.org/e/ti/article_04.htm There is information on Plato and how he influenced the Trinity at this link. This is an article about the Trinity written by Jehovah's Witnesses. You can do further research to verify (or not) the information presented, but I see nothing wrong with it being a starting point. Humbly admit I have not read your link yet, but I will at my leisure (yeah, like after starting school tomorrow I'll have that, right???), but you are not the only one to bring up the Greeks, so this needs to be added for the moment: I do want to address the idea about the Greeks because it is very important - especially given this is a CLASSICAL BOARD - and someone else mentioned Greek influence. There seems to be a lot of... how do I put this... disrespect (?) for Greek thought that causes people to dismiss its influence on Christianity. Okay, they were pagan, so some Christians are going to recoil for various reasons. It should be understood, I think, that the Catholic Church did not (does not) recoil from Greek thought (or many other pagan belief systems) because it was... again... how to put this... replete (?) with a lot of good ideas, mostly ones that were beginning to ask some important questions and think (reason) about things in new ways. That is why CLASSICAL THOUGHT is important and why we need to study it. Early Christianity understood this and did not hesitate to incorporate that where appropriate. Have you read Plato rather than just the Watchtower's take on him? When I read The Republic, I cried when I got to the part about what would happen to the "Just Man" if he were to walk on this earth. Socrates tells us that he would be tortured and killed!!! So... some 300 years before Christ, in a pagan civilization, the idea of Christ's coming and His death was prophesized. They had a lot of things wrong, to be sure, but the spirit of Truth was alive and well, working to open them to the Christian message when it arrived. And arrive it did! All of Western Civilization is the meeting of Greek thought and Hebrew Truth. Catholicism is highly respectful of this reality. What reason would any Christian have for studying Classic literature (I used this term in the sense of Classical Greek and Roman) if they feel fearful of pagan (I use this term in the classical Christian sense, which will no doubt offend someone) thinking in general? This is hugely important, because Christianity, at least in the US, is getting more and more out of touch with pagan and neopagan thought (almost terrified of it really) and will never be able to be fully kind, respectful, or engaging of those with that belief system until they realize it. Well, I'm like a binge drinker taking in the last of my booze before I have to get on the wagon! :D School calls! I think this thread has been very interesting and am also thankful that it has not been shut down or closed. Appreciation to all involved! Edited August 23, 2009 by Tea Time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 No problem. Would you be willing to explain the JW view of God and Jesus? I have the impression that the belief is that Jesus is not God, but the Son of God and that he got that position by merit of his personal righteousness during his life, but I also know I could be totally off base on that. We believe that Jehovah is the Almighty God, in both the OT and the NT. His name has not changed. He himself stated that He has not changed. Jesus read Isaiah 61:1, 2, in the synagogue, where God's name appears more than once. (Luke 4:16-21) (Matthew 6:9) John 17:6, 11. John 17:6, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veritaserum Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 We believe that Jehovah is the Almighty God, in both the OT and the NT. His name has not changed. He himself stated that He has not changed. Jesus read Isaiah 61:1, 2, in the synagogue, where God's name appears more than once. (Luke 4:16-21) (Matthew 6:9) John 17:6, 11. John 17:6, So does that mean JW belief is in a three-facets-of-one-same-being view of God? Or are you saying that Jesus and Jehovah are different entities and that Jehovah is the father? :confused: Oy, this stuff makes my head spin. The traditional Trinity has never, ever made any kind of sense to me. Why would God pray to Himself? How could He be His own father? You get the idea.... ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyFourSons Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 So does that mean JW belief is in a three-facets-of-one-same-being view of God? Or are you saying that Jesus and Jehovah are different entities and that Jehovah is the father? :confused: Oy, this stuff makes my head spin. The traditional Trinity has never, ever made any kind of sense to me. Why would God pray to Himself? How could He be His own father? You get the idea.... ;) :iagree: It is a really difficult doctrine to understand, which is why so many conflicts have arisen around it. It is described as a divine mystery, one men struggle to explain with words. As fascinated as I am by the subject, and as much reading and historical research I have done, I still need to just rely on blind faith for this one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyFourSons Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 MyFourSons, I wrote something about the issue of Mormons not allowing non-Mormons into temples in response to a TV program that claimed to show part of the temple ritual. You can read it here if you are interested. Er, links aren't working for me today. The link is here: http://tiny.cc/KTJwX Thank you for the information. I am not arguing that the ceremonies that take place are themselves are strange or that there is anything wrong with them. I am also aware that someone with little or no knowledge of Catholocism would find our rituals strange at first. That is not the point, the point is that people can witness the rituals in order to help them learn more about them. The issue is not the rituals themselves, but the amount of secrecy that surrounds them. There is plenty of anti-Catholic sentiment, even persecution, that has been instigated by people misinterpreting the rituals and teachings of the church, but Church has continued to remain open to the public. What goes on in the church is public knowledge, anyone can find out. This is very different from the Temple and the ceremonies that go on there. So while I am sensitive to your Church trying to avoid unwanted attacks and ridicule, it is really not a good enough reason to create such a secret and closed off system. After all, it is that level of secrecy that breeds mistrust and makes it all the easier for false stereotypes to occur. I am just trying to say that the secrecy and exclusion that surrounds the Temple and its rituals can not be compared to Catholic practices, as was earlier stated. The end of the article reads like this: "I’ve been dozens of times, and each time I feel an outpouring of the Spirit of God. You can’t do that on television, and so no matter what you saw on Big Love or read on the Internet, you haven’t experienced the temple. And because you can’t experience the temple outside of the temple, Mormons don’t want you to try, for fear that you’ll walk away thinking that you’ve experienced it when you haven’t." The same can be said about the Eucharist, watching it is not as powerful as recieving it, but watching it can still be a catalyst to you wanting to recieve it. Being open with your rituals and practices can help bring people to Christ. Certainly it can't hurt. And fact that watching a temple endowment isn't as powerful as participating in one is not a convincing argument for limiting attendance and making people take vows of secrecy. I understand that being in the Temple is an important spiritual event, but billions of other Christians have similiar experiences in the light of day, where anyone else can experience it with them. My most powerful spiritual experience happened in an open field where Pope John Paul II said mass for 100,000 pilgrims. I was in a huge crowd, and the section I was in had hundreds of people from Mexico who did not speak English, but I have never felt closer to other people in my life. It happened in daylight, with television cameras recording it for all the world to see. The level of secrecy is the only thing that makes the Mormon rituals stand apart, and I wish it were something that they could change. It is hard for us to trust something or someone who is not out in the light. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyFourSons Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 (edited) Have you read Plato rather than just the Watchtower's take on him? When I read The Republic, I cried when I got to the part about what would happen to the "Just Man" if he were to walk on this earth. Socrates tells us that he would be tortured and killed!!! So... some 300 years before Christ, in a pagan civilization, the idea of Christ's coming and His death was prophesized. They had a lot of things wrong, to be sure, but the spirit of Truth was alive and well, working to open them to the Christian message when it arrived. And arrive it did! All of Western Civilization is the meeting of Greek thought and Hebrew Truth. Catholicism is highly respectful of this reality. What reason would any Christian have for studying Classic literature (I used this term in the sense of Classical Greek and Roman) if they feel fearful of pagan (I use this term in the classical Christian sense, which will no doubt offend someone) thinking in general? This is hugely important, because Christianity, at least in the US, is getting more and more out of touch with pagan and neopagan thought (almost terrified of it really) and will never be able to be fully kind, respectful, or engaging of those with that belief system until they realize it. :iagree: I loved this post, it brought up so many insteresting things. It is not possible to overstate the impact that classical Greek philosophy had on the spread of Christianity. My religion teacher in high school explained that in God's infinite wisdom, He chose the most perfect moment in time to send Jesus into the world. The work of the Greek philosophers, such as you mentioned, worked to prepare the minds of the pagans to be receptive to the Christian message, they planted the seeds if you will. Then the Romans came along and created a stable empire with a wonderful system or roads, making overland world travel truly possible. Many historians have contended that this combination is an important factor in the spread of the Christian faith to spread, especially when the majority of the Jewish population had rejected Christianity and were persecuting Christians. The Son was sent when a large number of people were ready for the message and the means to spread the message throughout the whole world had become available. I personally did not have as much first hand experience with the Classics as I would have liked, so I am very excited to give this knowledge to my children. Edited August 23, 2009 by MyFourSons Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tea Time Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 So does that mean JW belief is in a three-facets-of-one-same-being view of God? Or are you saying that Jesus and Jehovah are different entities and that Jehovah is the father? :confused: Oy, this stuff makes my head spin. The traditional Trinity has never, ever made any kind of sense to me. Why would God pray to Himself? How could He be His own father? You get the idea.... ;) The Trinity is a little like a model used in physics (which is why I used th analogy in another post). Now, take some of the models used to describe physics, those just throw me. I like the nice, neat idea of particles, and the way they move around a nucleus just like the planets around the sun. But it isn't quite the reality of the concept. I mean, it is just a "model." I don't like not getting that stuff, but I do understand that many people do understand it, so I take it on authority. I have no choice. That is a good enough reason to accept the Church's teachings on the Trinity if I needed it, but I find the Trinity very comprehensible, and it clarifies for me other things that would otherwise take triple back flips to make sense out of. Understanding theology as a MAP is helpful. It is not the real territory, but it sure helps getting around in it. Lots of Christians don't like theology. They say it separates us from a relationship. And I think that is a good caution. After all, one could spend all day planning a trip with the map and never going anywhere! But using a map is an excellent way to deepen your understanding of the terrain and to help you get around if you use it wisely! Why would God pray to Himself? Emmanuel... God with us. As an example, to teach. His whole life with us was to bring reconciliation to Himself, a job that no prophet had ever been able to do. (Kind of like "if you want something done, do it yourself" in the extreme.) He does all things in this earthly life that He would wish us to do. As Christians, we are called to be like Christ. When he rebuked the devil, was there any chance that He would not? No, but he provides and example for us to follow and shows His willingness to be where we find ourselves. How could He be His own Father? Earthly fathers are images (think art as it relates to or describes facets of the artist) of God, they represent the idea of "authority" or "power" or "strength," not in the abused sense of the idea, but in its pure form where bitterness over position have no place. God the Father is that part of God's character that is omnipotent, omnipresent, etc... Is the Son jealous or resentful of His position as Son? No, those are human failings that do not apply to the Godhead. And neither does the carnal sense of reproduction. That is all part of the image. And the Spirit represents a lot of other aspects of God's character including the overflowing love between the Father and the Son - which is why it "proceeds from the Father and the Son" because, as we all know, "Love isn't love till you give it away!" That love is generously shared with all of us as the Spirit dwells with us. What else could Christ have meant when He told us that He would "be with us always� As far as I can see, Jesus, the man, is not with me in earthly body, but God, as the Holy Spirit is right here (So Jesus is too). A lot of Scripture just doesn’t make sense without this. So, those are just some examples. I'm definitely not speaking as a theologian or for the Catholic Church on this. Details into theology this heavy are easily goofed up, and I apologize if I mislead or misrepresent. Just food for thought to help understand the Trinity. Again, I recommend reading lots of C.S. Lewis (Mere Christianity, The Problem of Pain, Miracles, The Great Divorce...) and then G.K. Chesterton (Orthodoxy) to flesh out the Traditional Christian view, not just of the Trinity, but of a lot of other Christian ideas. And they were CLASSICALLY TRAINED in their education. They do not give you their own ideas - they are excellent at making accessible ideas from great Christian (and Classical) thinkers of all ages. I also again recommend Theology of the Body for Beginners to help with the Trinitarian idea. I think it is better read after the other authors, however, as it is more focused. Sorry if I have pushed the Trinity envelope today with my copious postings. I'm home sick and kind of passing the time! Thanks everyone for indulging! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie in Austin Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 MyFourSons, I appreciate your thoughtful comments. I think my only real point of disagreement with anything in your latest comment is that you treat the (non)openness as something that LDS leaders have decided, when every single one of them would tell you, "This isn't my choice. This is what the Lord has asked of us." Now, obviously, a non-LDS person won't agree with that explanation and that's fine. But I just wanted to be clear that, to us, this isn't a policy decision reached by a bunch of people sitting around a table and making a decision and therefore subject to change when we realize that it makes us look secretive. I'm not sure if this makes sense; let me try a different approach: your post reads as if you are setting out reasons why the LDS should change their policy. But the LDS don't think it is "their" policy; they think it is God's policy and therefore not up to them to change. (Let me also say: I didn't compare the LDS temple to the Catholic eucharist and I agree with you that that is not a particularly helpful analogy here.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 (edited) So does that mean JW belief is in a three-facets-of-one-same-being view of God? Or are you saying that Jesus and Jehovah are different entities and that Jehovah is the father? :confused: Oy, this stuff makes my head spin. The traditional Trinity has never, ever made any kind of sense to me. Why would God pray to Himself? How could He be His own father? You get the idea.... ;) Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the Trinity at all. I was interrupted before, but now I can continue: To sum up, the Almighty God has a name (Psalm 83:18) and that name has a meaning. This meaning has not changed. “I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be.” (Exodus 3:14) Rotherham’s translation renders those words: “I Will Become whatsoever I please.” So Jehovah can become whatever is needed in order to fulfill his purposes. Jehovah becomes whatever is needed in order to fulfill his promises. And it pleases him to use his power in behalf of those who love him. (2 Chronicles 16:9) This name is important to Jesus (John 12:28). Jesus is the only begotten son of God, the firstborn of all creation, all other things were then created through (by) him, and for him. I have already referenced scriptures that indicate that Jesus remained subordinate to his Father. John 1:1 as written in the original language explains what we believe. "In the beginning, the Word was and the Word was with the God (ton theos) and the word was [a] god (theos)." You see, as written in the original language, there is no indefinite article (a), so in English it has been added, but we can see that there was a difference because the first time Theos was used it was proceded by ton, the definite article (the). More here, down the page. So in the OT and the NT, the Almighty God is Jehovah. In the OT, we believe that Jesus was known as Michael the Archangel. His name then changed to Jesus when he came to earth. We believe that both Jehovah and Jesus are spirit beings without flesh and blood bodies, but that they do have a specified dwelling place in the heavens. I will add a couple more scriptural references later. Edited August 23, 2009 by Lovedtodeath Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie in Austin Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 Sorry, MyFourSons, I had to go for a minute. One more thing I wanted to respond to: You wrote, "It is hard for us to trust something or someone who is not out in the light." Yes, I completely understand this. However, Mormonism isn't supposed to work by anyone "trusting" us. (Please don't!) The way it is supposed to work is that people who are interested in the church are supposed to study the scriptures for themselves, pray for themselves, and receive their own answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 What do Jehovah's Witnesses believe about the Holy Spirit? We do not believe that the Holy Spirit is a person. Genesis 1:2 the Bible states that "God's active force ["spirit" (Hebrew, ru'ach)] was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters." We believe that God's Holy Spirit is his active force or energy that he exerts to accmplish his purpose. People can be filled with it, moved by it, and can manifest it. "I shall have to take away some of the spirit [ru'ach] that is upon you and place it upon them."—Numbers 11:17 Mark 1:12) The spirit was like a fire within God's servants, causing them to be energized by that force. And it enabled them to speak out boldly and courageously.—Micah 3:8; Acts 7:55-60; 18:25; Romans 12:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:19. more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cougarmom4 Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 (edited) There is more to it than us trying to keep things 'secret.' We consider the ordinances within the temple to be sacred--very personal and very dear to our hearts. Part of it has to do with the nature of the promises we make to Heavenly Father there. Much of what we hear there is directly from scripture. Much of what we learn there is communicated by the spirit to the hearts of those who are prepared to spiritually be in tune with our Father. Simply by examining the historical experiences of persecution and mockery that our early pioneers faced, one would understand why we would want to keep these sacred and spiritual experiences to ourselves. We choose not to cast our pearls before swine (not saying you are swine, btw!)...or in other words, we don't share those things that mean the most to us with those who are antagonistic, unbelievers, or even simply curious. To do so would undermine the sacredness of them, in my opinion. I understand you may not agree with this, and I accept that. I'd also offer that we do this as Heavenly Father has commanded us to do. I will share a personal experience with you to show you how important the sacred ordinances in the temple are to me. I was married in the temple. My parents are not members of my church and were not able to be with me. I would love to have had them by my side and part of my 'sealing' (this is what we call it). It just about broke my heart to leave them outside the temple as I went in. And yet, why would I do this? Because I believe with all of my heart in the priesthood power that seals families within the temple...and I wanted to be 'sealed' to my sweet husband for time and for all eternity. We do not pronounce 'til death do you part' or 'so long as you both shall live' in temple sealings. The priesthood power and authority used in the temple has the power to seal us or bind us as a couple (and our future children as a family) beyond the this life. We believe our family units are meant to last forever. This is a beautiful truth that I accept and adhere to...it means a lot to me and so I ask that you please respectfully refrain from debating this with me. Now then, it also is helpful to understand that within the temple, it is not one large cathedral where the bride & groom walk down the aisle with the wedding march playing. It is much less grandeur, much more simple, and very powerful and meaningful. We met with our closest family & friends who share our beliefs in a small room with an altar at the center. My sweetheart and I took hands across the altar. A priesthood leader spoke counsel to us and then used his authority to seal us as an eternal companionship, as we covenanted with one another and our Heavenly Father. Following the ceremony, we had a large reception where lots of friends and family joined us to celebrate. This was a wonderful time and we have fond memories of it. It indeed was a celebration of our joy together. My parents understood why we chose what we chose...and supported us in our decision. But the most important part of it to my husband and I...were the moments within the temple where we made our covenants. This was sacred and very personal to us. And I wouldn't have done it any other way. Edited August 23, 2009 by cougarmom4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 (edited) No problem. Would you be willing to explain the JW view of God and Jesus? I have the impression that the belief is that Jesus is not God, but the Son of God and that he got that position by merit of his personal righteousness during his life, but I also know I could be totally off base on that.Sorry this is in bits and pieces Amy. I have to share the computer and do some chores today, not to mention a grumpy 2 year old is always digging at my shirt. :) We believe that Jesus was created as the begotten Son of God. He then was awarded special additional honor (though it really couldn't change his position) after conquering the world and remaining faithful to the death. He is the king of God's promised Kingdom, and taking his position as such is also a change and an additional responsibility. Edited August 23, 2009 by Lovedtodeath Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 (edited) Does it matter? (Cross-posted) Jesus doesn't like denominations either. But they are here and so unfortunately, we must choose one. Yes, he told us to love each other, but he also said this: "Why, then , do you call me 'Lord! Lord!' but do not do the things I say?" Luke 6:46 and Matthew 7:21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' see also Matthew 24:45-51, Mark 7:6,7 and I also noticed in the illustration of the wheat and the weeds, that the weeds were thrown out. Then there are scriptures which Christ was directing his congregation to write: "Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him." 2 John 9, 10. 2 Timothy 3:2,5 Men will be ... having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power; and from these turn away. "For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge." Romans 10:2; see also 2 Timothy 2:16-18, 2 Peter 2:1,3; Acts 20:30; 2 Corinthians 11:14,15 The purpose of this post is not to be judgemental#170 There are many members of this board that seem to be sincerely searching for God, even if they have not yet found Him. There are others that are sure of their faith and their relationship and they have different explanations for their actions and beliefs, but truly and sincerely do their best. No human alive can judge hearts and know which individuals will turn out acceptable to God and which won't. Edited August 24, 2009 by Lovedtodeath Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MamaSheep Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 I had to take out a lot of your post to make this fit. Please forgive. I keep getting logged out so I can't format any better right now. The intent is not to truncate your argument. Sorry! Also, I keep finding errors in my remarks. This is getting hard to follow. Sorry for that, too. Oh not a problem at all. I did not think your intent was anything but honorable and I certainly did ramble on. Part of the problem here is that the comments of mine that you were responding to were never intended (by me) as any sort of "argument". They were just personal musings, observations, and opinions. That's one reason I included a lot of phrases like "to me", "in my personal experience", and "one thing that has struck me" -- to specify that these are my subjective, personal, off the cuff musings and NOT intended as persuasive apologetic argumentation. As I mentioned before, I don't have time to present a proper logical "argument" about any of this. If I were to do so I would want to include a good number of clear, factual statements backed up with quotes from relevant source documents and authority figures. But that would take time for me to research and to phrase intelligently and to document properly, and it's time I just haven't got right now. So I'm totally bowing out of "argument" on this subject, and just sharing off the cuff personal observations and feelings as I have time. If I can think of a relevant scripture or quote off the top of my head and know where to find it quickly I may throw that in for the sake of discussion, but it's still not what I would call an "argument" in favor of Mormonism or in opposition to any other faith, it's still just my own random musings on the subject. I'm so sorry I wasn't more clear on this to begin with, it must have been frustrating for you to read what I wrote trying to figure out exactly what argument I was trying to make. Regarding the Trinity, I have read quite a bit of C.S. Lewis, and think that he gets a lot of stuff really on-the-spot right. He has a great mind. But (without looking it up right now due to lack of time) what I recall from his writings is that after a lot of discussion and some excellent analogies, he too boils it down to the idea that God is so different from us that we cannot possibly truly understand Him, we just have to take Him on faith. But I'll try to remember to pay specific attention to that the next time I have Lewis in my hands. I do understand that a lot of people feel differently about the trinitarian concept of God than I do, and as I say, I was not attempting to formulate a coherent "argument" against it, only to share some personal musings in that general direction. Regarding Greek philosophy, I am not at all "afraid" of Greek philosophy, and I certainly see a great deal of value in it, and many truths elegantly expressed; it is definitely worth studying. However, I also believe that there is a difference between God's revealed truth and man's philosophy, and that the distinction is an important one. Human philosophy, regardless of its country of origin, has its uses, but it is not a substitute for divine revelation. My position is not that Greek philosophy was not worth considering by the early Christians (or by us either), or that it is something to be feared. Rather, my position is that some of the areas in which YOU believe that Greek philosophy was "appropriately incorporated" into Christian doctrine, I believe Greek philosophy was inappropriately used to alter or replace important divinely revealed truths. Referring back to your excellent caution regarding reformation, I think these early reformers (and yes I realize they're not usually CALLED that, it's just my opinion of what they were doing) missed the mark. And I also understand that you agree with their actions in that regard, and disagree with my opinion on the subject. I'm ok with that and don't feel a need to argue about it. Regarding additional scripture, yes I do realize that this is a HUGE thing. In my opinion, this is a huge POSITIVE thing, not a negative one, though I do understand that you view it as negative, and so do many others. In the early Christian church as described in the Bible, new revelation was received and written down, giving rise to "new" (at the time) scripture, so to me new scripture is very much consistent with the concept of restored primitive Christianity. If God is willing to give me more of His Word, I'm not going to tell Him I don't want it. How ungrateful would that be! Of course there is the challenge of determining whether what CLAIMS to be scripture, or revelation from God actually IS such--the same challenge faced by people in all ages of the world, "Is this guy who claims to be a prophet delivering the Word of God really who he claims to be? Is what he says really God's word?" and "Is this document purported to be written by so-and-so the prophet/apostle an authentic document or something someone made up and attributed to someone important in an attempt to gain credibility?". And of course that is fodder for another lengthy and interesting discussion, for which I don't have time...lol. And since I don't have time I'm not going to even begin such a debate. I do understand the significance of the claim of new scripture, and I can certainly understand why people who believe that Joseph Smith just made it all up would see it as a negative. But because I, personally, have become convinced (in various ways) that the "new" scripture of the LDS church is authentically from God, I see the addition of this new scripture as a HUGE mark in favor of Mormonism. If God really said it, then I WANT it. Did that hit on your main points? Your comments didn't post when I used the quote function due to how they were (very understandably!) formatted, so I don't have them in front of me to make sure. Again, I apologize for not being more clear about the fact that I was expressing random personal musings rather than attempting to formulate arguments. If you are interested in reading more organized, formal "arguments" on this kind of thing from an LDS viewpoint, one good place to look is www.fair-lds.org. It's not sponsored or endorsed by the church, but it is put together by LDS people (who evidently have more time on their hands than I do at the moment) and they have a lot of that sort of thing on many different topics. I'm sorry I can't dig into it in greater depth with you now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MamaSheep Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Sorry this is in bits and pieces Amy. I have to share the computer and do some chores today, not to mention a grumpy 2 year old is always digging at my shirt. :) We believe that Jesus was created as the begotten Son of God. He then was awarded special additional honor (though it really couldn't change his position) after conquering the world and remaining faithful to the death. He is the king of God's promised Kingdom, and taking his position as such is also a change and an additional responsibility. I don't mind the bits and pieces. I appreciate your willingness to explain even with a grumpy 2 year old. I keep getting interrupted by a 7 year old who wants me to know everything there is to know about the life and times of her plastic owl and a 12 year old who wants me to admire the improvements to his toast teleporter (on Crazy Machines), and now their father has wandered in wondering if I plan to do anything about supper. It does sound as if the differences between JW and LDS belief about God and Jesus are pretty significant. Thanks for your explanations. :001_smile: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 It does sound as if the differences between JW and LDS belief about God and Jesus are pretty significant. Thanks for your explanations. :001_smile: Yes, I was not aware of that before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tea Time Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Did that hit on your main points? Your comments didn't post when I used the quote function due to how they were (very understandably!) formatted, so I don't have them in front of me to make sure. Again, I apologize for not being more clear about the fact that I was expressing random personal musings rather than attempting to formulate arguments. If you are interested in reading more organized, formal "arguments" on this kind of thing from an LDS viewpoint, one good place to look is www.fair-lds.org. It's not sponsored or endorsed by the church, but it is put together by LDS people (who evidently have more time on their hands than I do at the moment) and they have a lot of that sort of thing on many different topics. I'm sorry I can't dig into it in greater depth with you now. Thank you for your gentle and generous reply. I think you covered everything very well, and we have about beat this dead horse to... well... death. :001_huh: Blessings to you and yours, and I hope you have a very good and productive week! :001_smile: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usetoschool Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 MyFourSons, (Let me also say: I didn't compare the LDS temple to the Catholic eucharist and I agree with you that that is not a particularly helpful analogy here.) Just to clear things up - it wasn't a comparison of the two ordinances but the only analogy available to talk about worthiness to participate in a church ordinance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.