Jason_J

well I'm going to the temple tomorrow for our ward temple night, can't wait. I briefly talked to the EQ President about it, and he said just to bring myself and my recommend. He didn't say anything about extra underclothes...should i just bring them anyway? If so, is it okay to bring a backpack in the temple?

Hi, I was baptized about 2 months ago. If you are interested in the Church, you should contact the missionaries, as already recommended. They will teach you the basics of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They will encourage you to read the Book of Mormon, and to pray to God about it as well as the other things they are teaching you. You should develop faith in Jesus Christ, repent of your sins, be baptized, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. After this, you will continue to attend church on Sundays (when you meet with the missionaries, they will ask you to attend with them). Partaking of the Sacrament (the Lord's Supper) allows you to remember the atonement of Jesus Christ, and to renew the covenants you made with God at baptism. After Sacrament Meeting, there is Sunday School, where you will continue to learn about the Gospel. New members continue to attend the Gospel Principles class, which teaches the basics of the Gospel. After sometime, you can begin to attend the Gospel Doctrine class, which studies the scriptures (this year the Church is studying the New Testament). You should also attend the Priesthood meeting after Sunday school if you're male, or Relief Society if you are female. I was ordained to the Aaronic Priesthood about a month or so ago, to the office of priest. In this capacity, I have blessed the emblems (bread and water) of the Sacrament for the past few weeks. It really is a powerful spiritual experience to be able to exercise the priesthood of God in the service of others. You will also receive something called a "calling", which is essentially a "job" in your local church that helps in its functioning. You will also be a home teacher. Finally, 2 weeks ago I received a limited-use temple recommend. This allows me to enter our temples to perform baptisms for the dead. This sacred ordinance allows us to offer the blessings of baptism to our deceased ancestors who did not have the opportunity to hear the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ in this life. This ordinance gives them the choice to accept or reject the Gospel. Throughout all of this, you should continue to read the scriptures, pray to God, and develop your relationship with God through Jesus Christ. That is really what all of the above is about, enduring to the end.

Please see my blog article on the Trinity, you may find it helpful: The Traditional Concept of the Trinity | Eternal Musings

Part of the problem with these discussions is that Trinitarians are using the words "person" and "being" in a way that isn't used in everyday language, where they are used interchangeably, and is the way that Latter-day Saints use them as well. So, while Trinitarians are okay with saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct Persons, they won't say that they are three distinct Beings, but one Being. "Person" and "Being" therefore refer to two different concepts (stemming from the Greek hypostasis and ousia, respectively, if I remember correctly). LDS instead are okay with saying that they are three distinct Persons and/or that they are three distinct Beings, since we use those words interchangeably. I think it is safe to say that both Trinitarians and LDS agree that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct from each other, meaning that they are not each other. The problem with the Trinitarian definition is when we get into whether it is really monotheistic, as I briefly brought up in my last post. If they are three distinct Persons, then they are numerically one what? What is the definition of "being"? Is it nature (as some Trinitarians define it as)? If so, how is having three distinct Persons with the same nature monotheism? LDS believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct Persons who are united in purpose, will, and love. They can be referred to as "one God" because of this. "One God" can also refer to the Father, as in 1 Cor 8:6.

Latter-day Saints maintain that the phrase "one God" can refer specifically to the Father (I find this somewhat similar to the usage by Eastern Orthodox Christians, who speak of the Father as the 'source" or "fount" of the Trinity, as well as 1 Corinthians 8:6, where "one God" is referring to the Father, or even the Nicene Creed itself, which says something similar to 1 Cor 8:6-"We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty...We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ...") and it can also refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost collectively, as is used in the Book of Mormon and other scriptures. They are "one God" because they are one in purpose, mind, intent, and love. This is called "the Godhead". I'm still curious as to what you mean by God being numerically one something, yet the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are considered to be distinct Persons who are not each other (in contrast to Modalism which states that the three Persons are merely masks or roles that the one Person of God takes). Some Trinitarians, such as Sheed in his "Theology and Sanity", a Catholic work, believe that "being" is referring to "nature", where the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct Persons who are of the same divine nature, and no one or else is of that nature. Therefore they would be one nature. However, I don't see how such a definition maintains monotheism any more or less than the LDS view. This view of "being" also finds support when Trinitarians say that the Son is not only "consubstantial" with the Father and the Spirit, but He became consubstantial with us (in His human nature of course) due to His incarnation.

How are you defining "entity" to say that God is three Persons but not three Entities? Also, you state that God is numerically one. Numerically one what? Essence? What is the definition of essence? Trinitarians believe that the Father is a distinct Person from the Son and the Spirit, the Son is a distinct Person from the Father and the Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is a distinct Person from the Father and the Son. So, they are not each other. If they are numerically three distinct Persons (to contrast it with modalism), then God is numerically one what?

While I am familiar with the status of Limbo as far as not being a doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church (it is understood to be speculative teaching based on what they believe has been revealed on related issues, such as original sin, mortal sin, and qualifications for Heaven and Hell, and the Catholic Church teaches that there is more cause for belief that God may save unbaptized infants in His mercy, instead of them going to Limbo, as can be read in this Vatican document), I have never seen anything put forth stating that Purgatory may not be doctrinal/Biblical. What are your sources for that? Purgatory and its related concepts of temporal punishment for forgiven sins, prayer and Masses for the dead, as well as indulgences, are quite important in Catholic theology. I'm very curious to see where "they" have said this.

I was briefly glancing at one of my old books (Signs of Life by Scott Hahn), and in it, there's a chapter about the "presence of God", and briefly talked about the Jerusalem Temple. It says that "It (the temple) was the divinely ordained place of God's presence. It was the one place on earth that could truly be called holy. It was the place where God's Spirit dwelt. It's important for us to get this right: Jews didn't believe that God was present only in the Temple and absent from the rest of creation. They professed, as we do today, that God is everywhere. But they also held that he made himself specially present to his people in the Jerusalem Temple and its rites. The Temple was a place where they could withdraw from the pollutions of the world and know God's presence in purity." Now, this is a Catholic book, so of course there are a few differences in our understandings in concepts such as God's omnipresence, as well as archaeological discoveries of the existence of more than one Jewish Temple anciently. My question though has to do with latter-day temples and the presence of God. How do we view such a belief? Is God "specially present to his people" in our temples? What does it mean to call the temple the "house of the Lord"? Finally, I found the opening two sentences to the chapter interesting-"We modern Christians have few occasions to use the word temple. It never caught on as a term for Christian places of worship. Of course Latter-day Saints would disagree :) (also, from what I remember, Russian Orthodox have a tendency to refer to their church buildings as temples many times).

Right, just avoid any prayers asking for Mary or another deceased person to intercede for you, since that of course is incompatible with the restored Gospel.

Latter-day Saints hold both the Bible and the Book of Mormon as the word of God, sacred scripture. We believe that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon contain the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Frequently, much is made about the phrase "as far as is translated correctly" in regards to the Bible. I find that this phrase captures the reality of the historical situation surrounding the Bible(s) as we have it/them today. There are various versions of the Bible, some with verses added or subtracted, and even the canon of the Bible varies among churches (with Catholics traditionally holding to more books in the Old Testament than Protestants and LDS, Eastern Orthodox holding to even more than Catholics, and Coptic Orthodox holding to more than the EOs). I also find the phrase similar to what some Protestant churches state in reference to the inerrancy of the Bible-that they believe the Bible to be inerrant in the original manuscripts (which of course we do not have). It would be highly odd for your LDS friends to have never read the Bible. The Bible is studied in our Sunday Schools, as well as in various other religious education settings, such as Seminary and Institute. Currently, we are studying the New Testament in Sunday School, and we go through all of our scriptural works every 4 years. Last year the Old Testament was studied in Sunday School.

so I met with the bishop today, and we discussed everything. We discussed the patriarchal blessing at length, as well as going through some thoughts from the stake patriarch. My bishop said that he'd go ahead and start the paperwork for that. I also received my limited-use temple recommend! It's good for one year (so hopefully by the time that expires, I'll be able to receive a full recommend). We talked about the temple, and he said that that could happen sooner than the patriarchal blessing, so he asked if I wanted to do the interview then. I can't wait for my first time in the temple. We have a ward temple night for baptisms for the dead coming up on the 12th, and unfortunately I'm scheduled to work that evening, but I'm going to see if I can take it off, since it would be great to go with a lot of people from the ward the first time.

No, Catholicism teaches that we can pray for souls in Purgatory. Purgatory is a place/state of cleansing where temporal punishment is removed, and one is purified before entrance to Heaven. All souls in Purgatory are saved and will be in Heaven at some point. Prayers for the souls in Purgatory are thought to help them out of the state and into Heaven. In contrast, limbo was/is a theological speculation (that was once widely taught) that teaches that the souls in limbo are not in Heaven, aren't being purified before entering Heaven in Purgatory, but they aren't in Hell either. It is instead a state of "natural" peace (in contrast to Heaven where you are in the eternal, unmediated presence of God). Limbo of Infants was speculated on because an unbaptized infant that dies would still have original sin, however they haven't committed any actual sins to sent themselves to Hell. In contrast to Purgatory, souls in Limbo of Infants never will go to Heaven, since they still have original sin.

Right, I understand. Today, the Catholic Church is moving away from the Limbo teaching, and towards a belief in "hoping" for the mercy of God in the case of the death of unbaptized infants, without saying one way or the other what happens to them. I must say, I'm grateful for the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ which teaches that unbaptized infants that die are saved, since they don't need baptism in the first place, thanks to the atonement. :)

Nice, well so far we haven't really gotten into "how's". It really would be helpful if such matters were gotten into early on, you know?

They cover more the "why", such as why we tithe, or why we go to the temple, but not the "how", which is what I'm trying to figure out.

Thanks so much, that was very helpful. One last question: how frequently do I pay tithing? Should it be every time I get paid?

No they don't. The Gospel Principles/Essentials class, which is the class that I attend after Sacrament Meeting, is mainly focused on the basics of the Gospel. For example, last week we discussed Adam and Eve and the Fall. The week before we talked about the Creation. There really isn't a class about how to "do" things in the Church, like how the Church actually "works".

Thanks! So how should I be paying tithing? What do I do? Last time I was at the bishop's office, I saw some slips one of which said tithing I think and the other said fast offering. What do I do with these? Also, Fast Sunday will be this Sunday because of Conference, so how/when should I go about giving my offering? I agree, I'm sure it'll be more fun/nice to go with a group. While I was investigating, during Priesthood, they passed around a form for people to sign up for a ward temple night to do baptisms for the dead. Hopefully next time I'll be able to go! Thanks again!

So I'm meeting with my bishop this Sunday to discuss receiving a patriarchal blessing, tithing (I have no idea if I should be paying tithing now, at the end of the year, basically how exactly does it work?), and a limited temple recommend to do baptisms for the dead. I'm grateful to have a temple right here in Manhattan, and the temple building also has a ward, small distribution center, and PR office. I went to the distribution center to see if they had scriptures a couple weeks ago, and it was nice to walk around the building (obviously the non-temple part). Anyway, once I receive the recommend, how often can I do baptisms? Do I need to schedule appointments, or wait for a ward group, or what? I'd like to be in the temple as much as I can, so I'm wondering how this works.

Yep I understand completely. For me though, I'm glad to know that we don't have to worry about infants and whether they would be saved or not if they did not receive baptism (since Catholic teaching has no doctrine as to what happens to unbaptized infants, leaving it at hope in the mercy of God, as per the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the International Theological Commission of the CC), since they are already saved through the atoning sacrifice of our Savior, Jesus Christ. But I understand what you're thinking, as far as "doing" something. A blessing would of course be ideal in this situation.

Dahlia, as others have said, the baby could receive a blessing, however as far as baptism, we know through the scriptures that it is unnecessary to baptize that infant, since, through the atonement of Jesus Christ, they are saved. Baptism is therefore unnecessary for the infant, and would not do anything or give them something that they don't already have. Be comforted in knowing that they are saved without needing baptism, through Christ's atonement. :)

No, I am not conflating distinct with divided, I am showing how, using the logic that you used to critique LDS belief, when applied to your own belief, that logic results in the same conclusion, that God is divided (I am not saying that that is true, but showing how your logic presents the same problem that you say is found in LDS belief, if we say that that logic is valid). What I am addressing is the distinction between the Persons in Trinitarian belief. Please show the post where I have stated that in Trinitarianism, the Divine Being is separated by the Incarnation. What I am addressing, again, is the distinction between the Persons. The Father is distinct from the Son and the Spirit, right? They are not each other, right? The Catechism says this, as I quoted. That is the issue that I am addressing, and showing that the argument you used against LDS belief can apply to Trinitarian belief, on that point. I have nowhere stated that the Divine Being is separated by the Incarnation, but that the Incarnation shows the distinction of Persons, according to standard Trinitarian teaching. God is one Being, but He is Three Persons, according to the Trinity. Also, using a human person as an analogy does not work in Trinitarianism, since I am one person. In Trinitarianism, God is one Being, but not one Person, He is Three. And there is no analogous belief found in LDS teaching, and you have yet to demonstrate such. The gift of eternal life, being in the eternal presence of the Godhead and becoming like God, is only found in the Celestial Kingdom, and is what God wants for us, as I have repeatedly stated. It is not found in any other Kingdom, and anything less than eternal life is considered damnation, since progress is stopped. God doesn't want that for us, and only wants us to receive eternal life with Him through the atoning sacrifice of His Son. This is why your analogy doesn't work. God doesn't will us to not be outside of His eternal presence. He allows us to freely choose. Your arguments aren't against LDS belief, but straw men. Again, God only wants us to receive immortality and eternal life. He does not want us to receive anything less. However, He does not force us, and allows us to freely choose to accept or reject His Gospel. No it isn't. Talking about the distinction between the Persons is standard Trinitarianism, and is found right in the Catechism. It has nothing to do with dividing God. "Being" and "Person" refer to two different concepts in the Trinity doctrine, but it seems as if you want to equate them. That is heresy. Yes, God is One Being, yet He is also three distinct persons. I am talking about the Three Distinct Persons and how they are relational and not each other (again, right in the Catechism). This is the point that you keep overlooking, and why you aren't understanding. "God is one but not solitary". It was the Son that incarnated, not the Father and the Spirit as well. That is what the Trinity doctrine teaches. It is that point that I am addressing, very simply. Do you agree that it was the Son that incarnated and not the other 2 Persons of the Trinity as well? If yes, then my argument stands, if no, then you are arguing from Modalism and not Trinitarianism. 254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."86 "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."88 The divine Unity is Triune.

I very clearly understand the traditional doctrine of the Trinity, since everything I have stated about it is right in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If I am not understanding it, please demonstrate that. For proof of my understanding, I cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church: 253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity".83 The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God."84 In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."85 254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."86 "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."88 The divine Unity is Triune. This is exactly what I have been saying in this thread. In Trinitarianism, the three Persons are "really distinct from one another", where the Father is not the Son or the Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father or the Son. This is where your argument against the LDS doctrine fails, because, while we disagree on how the 3 are 1, Trinitarians clearly believe that the 3 are distinct from each other ("God is one but not solitary"). That is the point I am addressing. If Trinitarians claim that the Son is distinct from the Father and the Spirit, as the Catechism teaches, then how is the only the Son incarnating on the earth (and not the Father, which would be patripassianism) not separating God, as you say LDS are doing? This is where your logic fails, since it condemns your own belief. My point is that you are applying your church's understanding of "person" and "being" to LDS beliefs, which doesn't work, since we do not use that understanding when we say things like "the 3 are 3 beings". While we use "being" and "person" interchangeably, as we do in everyday language, traditional Christians use them to mean two different things. When a Trinitarian says that God is one Being, it doesn't mean one Person, but for some reason, it seems as if this is stance that you are coming from, which is actually a heresy known as Modalism. If not, then it seems as if you are ignoring the fact that the Trinity doctrine teaches that the 3 are distinct persons who are not each other, which is the point I've been addressing this whole time. Of course. Eternal life includes living in the eternal presence of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Members of the Lord's restored Church believe that God wills that we are perfected through Jesus Christ. We believe that He has restored His Kingdom, and that all of the ordinances, commandments, and doctrines point towards eternal life in His presence. Anything less can be considered damnation (as the Encyclopedia of Mormonism asserts). God only wants us to receive immortality and eternal life, and that is what He wills, as our scriptures assert. What you claim LDS believe is not what we actually believe.

I don't need to argue about God either. My point is that your argument about God being divided in LDS belief equally applies to the traditional Christian belief, since your Church teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct persons who are not each other (as also affirmed in the Athanasian Creed). If this is true, then we know that Trinitarians believe that it was only the Son that incarnated, not the other Persons of the Trinity (it was not the Father that suffered and was crucified, for example, which is considered a heresy known as patripassianism). Clearly, the logic that you are using to criticize LDS belief extends to your own beliefs. My other point was simply that your assertion that we believe in three beings while you don't doesn't work, since we do not share your definitions of "person" and "being", which originate in ancient Greek/Latin frameworks. However within that framework, you believe that while the three are one being, they are distinct persons (referring to two different concepts), and I was specifically addressing the distinct persons aspect. Latter-day Saints don't believe that we are rewarded for going against God either. Again, anything less than eternal life, exaltation, living in the presence of the Godhead, can be considered damnation. Latter-day Saints don't believe that either. We believe, as I have already said, that the work and the glory of God is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man (Moses 1:39). Everything in the Kingdom of God, His restored Church, is pointed towards eternal life, exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom, through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Not all people will accept the Lord's Gospel, and therefore there are different rewards and consequences based on the faith and works of the person. Unfortunately, all of these are less than what God wants for us. Clearly, evil is not rewarded, and this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of LDS beliefs if you think we teach that.

The point is to show evidence of LDS beliefs anciently. Of course we believe that the early Church went apostate, however that does not mean that we believe that it lost all truth. This is why we refer to the early Church Fathers, to show that LDS beliefs did not simply originate in the 1800s, but can be found in ancient Judaism and Christianity. Latter-day Saints believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, as our scriptures repeatedly assert. We also believe that the Father can be referred to as the "one God", as we see in the Bible (1 Cor 8:6). We disagree with traditional Christians as to how the three are one, however that does not mean that we don't believe that they are one.