SeekingTruth

What a journey!

I want to be clear-- before I continue to engage in this discussion-- that I'm not going to be able to give you what you want to hear. I will not be able to point to an apostle who clearly and articulately defines the dogma of the Trinity. What was written is contained in Sacred Scripture. But there is also Apostolic Tradition, which refers to the teachings of apostles that were handed down orally. These weren't written down. They were taught to the disciples of the apostles, who in turn taught their disciples. "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). So what we get is these teaching written down only after they have been passed down orally through a few generations of disciples. Ignatius was an auditor of John and was the third Bishop of Antioch (therefore in the line of apostolic succession). Here are two excerpts from his letters referencing (but not explicitly defining) the Trinity: Again, I'm not claiming that these explicitly define the Trinity. They are references. The first direct reference to the dogma comes about 70 years later, from Theophilus of Antioch (another bishop in the line of apostolic succession): Of course, the term could've been used beforehand, and probably was. Most things were talked about before they were actually written down. I could offer other quotes of the like of Theophilus', but I don't think that's the point. We're in a disagreement about what type of evidence is needed to convince someone of the Trinity. Christian dogma are proclaimed by the Church when it "proposes truths contained in divine Revelation or having a necessary connection with them." (Catechism of the Catholic Church 88) Like I said before, I really don't think this is about providing enough evidence, from either side. It's about which historical narrative to which you adhere. If the Holy Spirit has been with the Church from the time Jesus established it, then the dogma of the Trinity is true. It is true because it was founded in the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, was handed down by their disciples, and with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, was more fully understood, then by the power of the Holy Spirit, proclaimed as dogma. I willingly admit that, from the writings of the Apostles, you can interpret the nature of God in very different ways. That is why there was dispute about it in the early Church. Now, as a Catholic, I believe that the Holy Spirit was guiding the Church during this time and led Her to the proper understanding of the nature of God (which is founded, although not explicitly stated, in sacred scripture). However, if a different narrative is accepted, the story looks a little different. If the Holy Spirit did not guide the Church, then there was no way to come to knowledge of the true nature of God. Not until the Church is restored and can then authoritatively clarify it.

I skimmed through this thread and read most of the posts. I probably won't reply to an individual post or poster, however, because I want to offer a different spin on explaining the Catholic perspective. I think the important thing that should be highlighted from the very beginning of this discussion is that neither the LDS nor the Catholics are believers of sola scriptura and so I think it a little silly that either side is trying to find 100% evidence of the nature of God in the New Testament. Of course, I understand why Sacred Scripture is emphasized-- it's our common ground, since the LDS don't believe in Sacred Tradition and Catholics don't believe in continued revelation. So, while Sacred Scripture will be favored in this type of discussion, I think that we would all do well to remember that neither of us believe that doctrine must be proven solely from the Bible. Based or supported in Scripture, absolutely, and definitely not contradicted by it. I think previous posters have shown where the doctrine of the Trinity is supported in Scripture. My personal favorite verse, which is echoed elsewhere, is this simple command in Matthew's gospel: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Matthew 28:19 So, a few different thoughts: (1) Now, that single verse can be interpreted in different ways, clearly. So how does one know what is meant by it? There must be a teaching authority, guided by the Holy Spirit, that can interpret Scripture and proclaim it's meaning. This comes down to the question of the apostasy. Either the Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit to clarify doctrine or it lost that guidance and there needed to be a restoration... (2) Back to the point of sola scriptura. Catholics believe that along with Sacred Scripture there is Apostolic Tradition, both of which constitute the deposit of faith. Through this Apostolic Tradition it can be shown that there was belief in the Trinity dating back even to Ignatius of Antioch in 110AD. There is even some evidence of it in the Didache, 70AD. (3) In the early Church, doctrines were not defined formally until there was dissent about it. So, there was certainly belief in the Trinity long before it was formally defined as a doctrine. (4) Concerning dissent in the early Church... Here again is where much depends on whether or not the Holy Spirit remained with the Church. If He did, then we can trust that He also guided the Church on this matter. ----- Maybe it's my simple naivete, but it seems like debate about this is really quite obsolete. It seems to me that this debate itself highlights the reason we need the Church of Christ as an authority, established by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit, to make clear these matters of doctrine. So I guess to me it all comes back down to the apostasy and which Church is the "true" church.

I'm a member at the forum as well, and as a Catholic, let me say that it personally makes me quite angry to see the way other religions are treated in the non-Catholic section of the forum. In fact, a few weeks ago I had been involved in some of the threads concerning LDS, but ended up having to leave because of the lack of charity involved with some of my fellow Catholics. I even attempted, as a sister in Christ, to gently correct their attitudes, but I too was then ridiculed. I'd like to apologize on behalf of the Catholic Church and other Catholics for their behavior-- it certainly is not representative of the values of the Catholic Church or its beliefs. The members that post on the Catholic forum are not necessarily sanctioned by the owners or apologists that run the forum, never the less, their words and actions ought to be moderated more closely, I think. I agree there is a growing opposition for what you name "alternative religions," but I don't think the cause is shrinking number. You'll find that membership in Catholicism is actually on the rise. I think part of the reason that many Christians and Catholics as well are so defensive (even to the point of lack of charity) toward the LDS is because it seems secretive. Let me rephrase that, because I don't want anyone to misunderstand what I actually mean. Not that the LDS are secretive, but that the religions seems secretive. If people would take the time to learn more about the faith, they would receive answers to their questions. There are a lot of misconceptions about the true nature of the LDS faith and beliefs. I would hope this is something Catholics would commiserate with, considering we suffer from the same thing-- people thinking they know what our faith believes but really don't... and they won't even ask us to clarify.

When I was in high school, I found myself often times gravitating toward friendships with the Mormon kids precisely because they were not snooty. They radiated a pureness and goodness that I wanted to emulate. And they befriended me, even as an atheist. Maybe my experience was a unique one, but I doubt it. The LDS do an excellent job of instilling Gospel values into their families-- something we can all take an example from.

I think you'll find that Catholics and Mormons are closer on this question than one might initially think. (As you can probably tell, I'm going to answer with a Catholic perspective ) 1) What is the position of non-LDS Christian churches on the role of tradition and consensus in establishing truth and doctrine? Catholics hold that apostolic tradition, along with sacred scripture, constitute what we call the "deposit of faith". Unlike most of our Protestant brothers and sisters, we do not believe in "sola scriptura". Nowhere in sacred scripture is there anything that says we must hold to only what is written in scripture. In fact, St. Paul says otherwise, in his letter to the Thessalonians. "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." --2 Thessalonians 2:15 Catholics also believe that everything that was to be revealed was revealed in Jesus Christ (this, obviously, is a point of disagreement between the LDS and Catholics) and that we have access to that revelation via sacred scripture and apostolic tradition. Of course, just because revelation was fulfilled in Jesus, that doesn't mean we fully understood that revelation fully. Our understanding of the faith is continuously growing, but it is firmly grounded in the deposit of faith. Therefore tradition, along with sacred scripture, and the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit, together establish truth and doctrine. 2) What are the arguments in favor of using tradition and consensus as a means of arriving at the truth? Well, I think that, if one believes that the Holy Spirit was sent by Christ to guide and protect the Church, the use of tradition is something that makes sense. The canon of the Bible had to be decided somehow by the Church. And St. Paul himself states that there are truths not written down, but passed on by oral tradition. There is little that can be established from scripture alone. There needs to be a way to interpret scripture that is guided by the Holy Spirit and can be verified.

Yeah-- there's usually a collection at every Sunday Mass. A basket that is passed around through the pews. But I think (I'm not employed yet, so I haven't any way to materially support the Church) that there's also a way to make your support in other ways.

Well, I have two separate, but very similar experiences. The first was the experience that led me to believe in God in the first place. I had been reading from the Book of Mormon, from the Book of Nephi. At this time I was still an atheist, but I wanted truth and, despite my own atheistic beliefs, I wanted to believe in God. Anyways, I put down the Book of Mormon and, for the first time in my life, I decided to pray. I knelt, thinking myself crazy, and asked God if He existed, said that I wanted to believe but I couldn't, and that I needed something from Him. What happened in response to that prayer is still ineffable. My body began to shake ever so slightly and I was filled with a joy that I had never before known. I thought my heart would burst out of my chest! In the course of a single moment I knew, without any doubt, that God existed and more, the He loved me! That God was love! Love beyond any love I had ever known! A few moments later I was sitting on the floor next to my bed, out of breath and shaking uncontrollably. My palms were sweating. All that I could do was cry. So I cried. Out of joy, out of shock, out of sorrow… I don’t know. Probably a mixture of all three. The second experience occurred a few months later, as I was trying to figure out which Church was the true church. By this time I had met a few times with Mormon missionaries (I had been reading the Book of Mormon, after all) and had done what they had instructed, what you have also suggested... but I did not receive any sort of spiritual confirmation. I had gone to the local Catholic Church and it was there, during Mass, that I had my spiritual confirmation. It was almost exactly the same as my previous experience, except that I knew, without a doubt, that the Catholic Church is the true church established by Christ and that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

Within the Catholic Church, it is required that one go to Mass on all Sundays and Holy Days of Obligations (different feasts or 'celebrations' on certain days throughout the year), to receive Holy Communion at least once a year during the Easter season, and to go to Confession once a year. Oh, and one must follow the days of fasting and abstinence established by the Church. These come from the precepts of the Catholic Church. We're supposed to support the Church materially, as much as each is able. A tithe of 10% is generally encouraged-- 5% to your local parish and 5% to charity. Of course, these are the "minimums" established by the Church. The Church highly recommends frequent reception of the Sacraments of Eucharist (Communion) and Penance (confession), daily prayer, participation in faith groups, and the like so that one can truly grow in their spiritual life.

You know, this is something I've discussed recently with the Missionaries. I consider myself someone who is honestly a truth seeker. It's a gift from God and it's what He used to draw me from atheism to believer. However, when I was trying to find out which Church was His, I had a very different answer. I read the Book of Mormon and I prayed, truly seeking an answer, whether the LDS was the true Church. I did the same with the Catholic Church (I knew that it was one of the two-- they are the only two churches with legitimate claims to being true) and it was there that I received that spiritual confirmation. I don't understand how or why some people receive one answer and others a different answer. Clearly I believe firmly that the Catholic church is true-- universally... and you all here, believe that the LDS is universally true. Somebody is wrong. But how or why? Deception by the Devil? I don't know.

Hi everyone, I am a 21 year old recent convert to Catholicism. I grew up in an agnostic household and was an adamant atheist until my sophomore year of high school. In my search for truth, I found myself very interested in both the LDS and Catholic Church. While God has drawn me into the Catholic Church, I still have a great amount of respect for the LDS and an interest in their beliefs. I also just recently graduated from college with a degree in philosophy. I'm an avid baseball fan, played softball most of my life, and I love country music. I'm looking forward to learning more about Mormon doctrine and I'm more than willing to answer questions about Catholicism. :)