Leaderboard

I think you're right - it's a sloppy formulated question, but that can have its advantages. It helps examiners separate the duller candidates - the sort of people who give lazy answers like "how long is a piece of string?" - from those with a spark of inquisitiveness and speculation. A better candidate will think "OK I don't have all the information I would like, but maybe if I make some assumptions I can still go somewhere with this!"

I think Jamie, Mores, and Scott have covered it pretty well. From a modern perspective, the question is poorly worded, starting with the laughable (from a modern perspective) idea of a comet knocking half of the earth's mass away. Then there is the confusion as to whether the earth's loss in mass is effectively instantaneous, and if not, whether the mass left the earth along the axis of the moon's orbital plane or whether it was more along the plane. And, of course, the whole thing is silly, because any impact with enough energy to literally strip away half of the earth's mass would undoubtedly create a condition where the remaining earth was reduced to a rubble cloud, one that would then eventually recoalesce, almost certainly including the moon in its body. The moon would likely become the new center of accretion; it could hardly avoid being pelted by very large pieces of the earth's rubble cloud. Jamie's proposed amendment is much better from a modern perspective: What if Harry Potter magically vanished away half of the earth's mass? As has already been discussed. it looks like the result would be indeterminate, with a good probability that the moon would escape the remnant earth's gravitation. Except, again, that's not a good answer if you take it further. Because the moon will still remain in the same basic orbit as it was with the earth, and the remnant earth will likewise remain in that same orbit. Both orbits will probably become somewhat elliptical, but they'll stay in the same general area, with their orbits intersecting at one or two points. So it's only a matter of time until the moon collides with the remnant earth or rubble cloud, and eventually you'll get a new, much smaller planet where the earth once orbited. The first rule of solving any physics problem is to know what is being asked for. A probem like this is hard exactly because it's not clear what's being asked for. In this case, the difficulty is more precisely that you're not sure what the assumptions are supposed to be, and until those assumptions are clarified, you're not likely to arrive at a good solution.

In my experience, mainstream Christians generally refuse to extend to the LDS view of the Godhead, the same courtesy of 'inability to fully comprehend' the doctrine in light of passages of the Bible which, at face value, may appear to contradict the doctrine. Seems to me that one could read only the Bible and, without intervention from others, easily come to either conclusion on their own. Both interpretations require faith that extends beyond what can be determined from the text alone. On a related note: My grandfather, who is Baptist, accepts the foundational LDS interpretation of the Godhead as accurate (3 separate beings united in purpose), although he rejects the LDS interpretation of the Father's nature (flesh and bone). I bring this up is because so many people I have met who accept the doctrine of the trinity, label non-trinitarians, such as us Latter-Day Saints, as not being Christians. Someone else's label doesn't bother me, but the inability to acknowledge such a paradigm flaw is annoying to say the least.

Yes, you're right. I was thinking the very same thing as I wrote. I asked myself, "How is it, Harrison, that you find it easy to accept the possibility of one God instead of many or that God always existed, but difficult to comprehend some other doctrines?" And I confess that people were telling me such from a very early age. So, I counseled myself that some other person such as @Maureen could just as easily perhaps accept the doctrines you (and @prisonchaplain ) have endeavored to explain to me. So, I appreciate your patience with me, and taking a little extra time to share your beliefs. I hope my respect has been apparent.

Well, Brother, unless I'm hearing only what I want to hear you seem to have mortared the bricks I placed. I hope you'll welcome my continual questions as time goes on knowing that this particular one has so many more questions than answers. I look forward to more conversations with you.

I was asked a great question on this site a few years back: How wrong can one be about God and still go to heaven? This was an LDS question being asked of a Trinitarian. The expected answer might have been along the lines of not at all, or at least believe in the Trinity, or some other appeal to a historic (or even creedal) understanding of the one true God. Then there is the cop-out: the judging of souls is above my pay grade. Ultimately, I would contend that the latter is more true. However, what I did answer was that despite our many shared truths there is not one Article of Faith nor one Fundamental Truth (my church's truth claims) that we could agree on--at least not without explanation.* We both fervently believe that the Holy Ghost guides us. So, one or both sides is missing something. Wise Christians leave the converting and convicting to the Holy Ghost. So we come together when we can, at sites like this, and we share life and thoughts and hopefully some inspirations. * As an example, the LDS Article of Faith that allows for people to worship according to the dictates of the conscience, to me, implies the three kingdoms and pre-mortal existence. In terms of secular law, I agree. However, theologically, I would want to at least clarify. 😎

I would say if your investigator is wrestling with questions about Sealing then they have seriously derailed and you need to get them back to the basics. Is the Book of Mormon True? Because if it is not then the temple does not matter.. It fails with the Book of Mormon. Is Joseph Smith a prophet? Because if he is not then the temple does not matter... if fails with Joseph Smith. Are we currently lead by a prophet? Because if we are not then the temple does not matter... if fails with the current leadership. If the investigator gains their own testimony of all three. Then the temple is also true, while we might not fully understand everything about it. The Lord teaches line upon line. He gives us a little bit and then waits to see if we will act on it. If we do then he gives us more. Anyone that wants to understand the temple has to first know the Book of Mormon is true and that we are lead by God... and be acting on that knowledge. Until that happens the spirit will not be with them because of their disobedience and faithlessness in what God has already given them.

We have different problems that may not easily compare. We Trinitarians espouse a seeming absurdity--that God is three and one, simultaneously. According to scripture the Father is certainly God, as is the Son, as is the Holy Ghost. Equally true is that God is one. So, how are they three and one at the same time? That is a question the Bible does not address with much precision. We explain to our members using triangles, eggs, states of H2O, etc. All such analogies are extra-biblical, and our detractors can easily point to deficiencies. The LDS Godhead feels polytheistic to us. We're already aware that our monotheism is rejected by Jews and Muslims. We do not want to push any further by accepting a unity-in-purpose understanding of our God. As to this grandfather, well I'm not one to question anyone's Christianity. However, he is not a traditional Trinitarian if he accepts that God's unity is merely of purpose. There are a small number of theologians who suggest something like a social Trinity, but most reject this teaching--again, as too polytheistic. LDS can be magnanimous towards Trinitarians. After all, if we are devoted and not actively opposed to the Church we have the likelihood of entering the Terrestrial Kingdom. We traditionalists, on the other hand, believe in a heaven vs. hell ending. We fear that anyone too far from true doctrine may face eternal punishment. So, we are ever-so-cautious, and can come across as abrasive and judgmental.

My understanding from that of a previously being Catholic, but the extent of my deep doctrine education simply being the Catholic school education all Catholics (should, or normally) get, regarding the trinity is as follows, at least as best as I can explain it. (This is not necessarily what I believe being a faithful member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints...it is simply my understanding I obtained as a Catholic earlier in Life). First, one principle that constantly gets ignored (though I suppose it depends on what creed one is looking at) is that one can comprehend the nature of Diety, but at the same time, this is also incomprehensible. Our feeble, limited, mortal minds cannot comprehend the very nature of Deity because we are finite and limited and cannot comprehend the infinite of him. This is why, though we can try to look at the subject, in many instances, despite our best attempts, we cannot truly or fully understand it. That said... The trinity is a three in one idea. They are three individual and different beings. Just like you and I are different individuals, so they are also different individuals. Now, the difficult interpretation comes in that they are also consubstantial, or of the same substance. This makes them effectively ONE being. Discussions of HOW this comes about is the subject for MANY debates. Many shy away from trying to define how this is, as in reference to the first item I stated, even if we try, we cannot actually comprehend how this is possible or done. There are other debates about this. One that I prefer to utilize is to think about our bodies. We have many different body parts. Three of these are my right hand, my left hand, and my head. They are all parts of my body. However, my head is distinctly NOT my right or left hand and the same applies to my hands. These body parts can operate independently of each other. You can see them at various times together but you can also tell that they are not the same thing. At the same time, they are ALL part of me, they are the same person as I am. Now, there are many Trinitarians that do not agree with that example, as they would say that these body parts are still the same being and not three independent minds. There are several branches of this idea as well. One would be the same as I described above, but imagine that each body part also has a mind of it's own. It is all still part of me, and the same body, but each part is also independent in that it has it's own mind and ability to act. Others say this is still too restrictive. That, rather than just the same body, each portion of me would need to be it's independent part, unconnected to the rest of my body, with it's own mind, but still at the same time a part of me. As we deviate further and further from my original example one actually gets CLOSER to our Church's idea of what the trinity is. In effect, one could look at our ideas and say that we are at the far extremes of what trinity is, but in debate could still fall under that umbrella. One of these extremes that I have heard discussed among Catholics is that of what substance is and consists of. I did not agree with this idea as a Catholic, but I know there are some that refer to this idea. In this there is the idea that there are several different substances in the universe. One of those is what makes us human or people. The Lord is NOT of this substance. He is of another substance. We, as humans are all individuals. We are all separate and different beings. On the otherhand, as we are all made of the same substance, we are part of the whole humanity. In this, we are many, but created of the same substance. We are all the same type of creature and make. On the otherhand, the trinity is made up of another substance, but it is the same substance of their body. In this way, they are also independent beings, but as they are made of the same substance, also one. Thus they are three in one. As you can see from the last idea, it is getting VERY close to what the LDS believe...though we still have different ideas. In the same way that the fringes of Trinitarian thought may think of the three in one being three separate characters but made of the same stuff, just like humans and humanity are many beings but made of the same stuff..we believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three different beings (though not necessarily in the same way humans are different but of the same stuff). This is from my years prior to joining the church, where obviously I now believe in what the Church teaches. In reflection and having learned much about other religions, I find something rather unique which normally Trinitarians object to. This thought is that Trinitarian ideology actually is VERY close in perception to what some Hindu sects also view about what their god/gods are and how they are defined (same substance, different beings). Unfortunately, rather than see the things that unite these ideas, most normally want to deny the similarities (on both sides) and try to prove why they are more correct than the other in their three in one beliefs (whether Trinitarian, modalism, or otherwise).

I have been presuming that you are LDS, so I did not think you were embracing Modalism. Rather, you seemed to suggest that if we say God is the Father (rather than the Father is God) it could lead to a Modalistic understanding. I believe that you and I both would see a problem with that. As for scripture-adherence, sure there are some debates in which both sides claim the Bible supports their side. My point was that if the Bible does not say a thing (or even answer a particular question) then I tend to say so. Too often we (maybe I) treat our conjectures as expressed truth. As you read posts here you will find that most posters are pretty faithful about distinguishing opinion, interpretation, and church-approved doctrine. Enjoy the site, friend!

Thank you for saying so (with regard to turning the sentences around). Thus, I have a better understanding of some fundamental differences in the ways you and I would approach this issue. With regard to being lead toward Modalism I may have been less than clear. I don't feel lead that way. I only used it as an example because you had mentioned it earlier. Moreover, I'm unclear myself on what you mean about going beyond scripture. As an outsider to so many of these doctrines it seems that one person's strict adherence to scripture is another person's erroneous interpretation of scripture or wayward venture away from scripture. But in any event thank you for patiently responding to my questions.

Here is another quote you may like Grunt from Joseph F. Smith, "To the faithful Latter-day Saint is given the right to know the truth, as God knows it; and no power beneath the celestial kingdom can lead him astray, darken his understanding, becloud his mind or dim his faith or his knowledge of the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It can’t be done, for the light of God shines brighter than the illumination of a falsehood and error; therefore, those who possess the light of Christ, the spirit of revelation and the knowledge of God, rise above all these vagaries in the world; they know of this doctrine, that it is of God and not of man." (emphasis mine) Anything, any question, any person seeking to destroy faith in God's Church/Gospel can and will be overcome if we possess the light of Christ, the Spirit of revelation. I know this to be true.

And thus why I love these words from Nephi, "And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things." We don't have to have every question answered, nor do we need to know everything. We simply need to remain faithful to what the Lord has witnessed, while keeping our eye on the tree of life. Stay true to that and then we will be like Joseph F. Smith, "It is not by marvelous manifestations unto us that we shall be established in the truth, but it is by humility and faithful obedience to the commandments and laws of God. When I as a boy first started out in the ministry, I would frequently go out and ask the Lord to show me some marvelous thing, in order that I might receive a testimony. But the Lord withheld marvels from me, and showed me the truth, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little [see 2 Nephi 28:30], until he made me to know the truth from the crown of my head to the soles of my feet, and until doubt and fear had been absolutely purged from me. He did not have to send an angel from the heavens to do this, nor did he have to speak with the trump of an archangel. By the whisperings of the still small voice of the Spirit of the living God, he gave to me the testimony I possess. And by this principle and power he will give to all the children of men a knowledge of the truth that will stay with them, and it will make them to know the truth, as God knows it, and to do the will of the Father as Christ does it. And no amount of marvelous manifestations will ever accomplish this." (emphasis mine)

Here's my definition of the Trinity: The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. There is only one God. So... Modalists say God in One in Three--that Jesus is all three, and fills this different 'modes' or roles. Trinitarians say that God is Three in One--that the three are distinct persons, but are one in a substantial way. LDS Godhead says God is three separate personages that are united in purpose. Each view has its opponents, its questions, and its defenses. Modalism believes it solves the argument of the Jews and Muslims--that Christians are polytheists. I suppose that LDS believe their teaching solves the seeming absurdities of God being one and three simultaneously. Trinitarians believe we hold the biblical middle ground. Of necessity; we embrace the difficulty of understanding God's threeness/oneness.

It is a difficult matter to define the nuances of this discussion. We Trinitarians struggle against the idea that the Godhead is only united in purpose--insisting that God is one in some substantial way. Then LDS wonder at our seeming Modalism and ask of us the same questions we ask of Oneness folks (who was Jesus talking to when He prayed, etc.). We answer that no, the three beings are distinct--just not separate. Now LDS wonder why we find their belief so different. The bottom line is that Trinitarians believe in the Oneness and the Threeness of God, and we suspect that diverting too far one way or the other leads to serious error.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/1975/12/q-and-a-questions-and-answers/what-happens-when-a-couple-gets-a-temple-divorce?lang=eng M.

As I think about your questions I find myself also thinking about my grandchildren, my kids when they were your daughter's age, and myself when I was that age. At times as I remember my childhood experiences I shudder at how quickly and for how long I often wandered from a point where my parents knew my precise location to places where they couldn't possibly have a clue where I was. Partly because of those memories some of my parenting tactics differed from those of my mom and dad, and I went to great lengths to "keep my kids in my sights" even when they didn't know. And yet some things I didn't particularly approve still occurred--no surprise, right? By contrast, sort of, a friend years ago when I was raising my babies *seemed* to let her 8 children do what they wished and where they wished to do it. There were broken bones, bandages crutches, etc., etc. But as far as I can know those kids survived to adulthood. (And their father, a bishop, was recently killed by a drunk driver.)😭 I have a dear friend who as a child before the age of 12 was sexually abused repeatedly by a cousin.😡 And today I worry constantly about my sweet grandsons. You probably didn't find anything in my remarks that qualifies as advice. Neither did I. If I try to think of a point perhaps its only to observe that being a parent is at once so darned tough and so marvelously sweet, so sublime and so scary. I suppose that I'm like you--I prayed a lot, I cried a lot, I laughed a lot, I relied at times on some of the other villagers, I regretted some of my mistakes (both the commissions and the omissions), I thanked God for these precious souls, and I sometimes looked up at the sky and cried out, "Why?". In my heart I wish everything good for you and your sweet daughter. 💛

There's nothing wrong with having opposite-gender friends at an age. Dating is a different thing.

This is so important. For traditional Christians, like myself, the idea of Jesus being a literal offspring of the Father seems to mean Jesus had a start--that He was created. Of course, this is not the LDS teaching or meaning. Interfaith discussions about the nature of Jesus--especially in relation to the Father--almost have to include the LDS teaching that we are all eternal beings. Pre-mortal existence is not traditional Christian teaching, and I suspect there is a lot of misunderstanding that never gets sorted out, as a result of the two teachings not being tied together.

Soooo......... is my Moon-Earth fire pole still lethal?

Wish me luck! I'm off to inform the missus that I've formally adopted this title for domestic use.