Jason_J

Well we're meeting tomorrow in the afternoon. I'll let everyone know how it goes!

So the missionaries finally called yesterday, but I was at work and missed the call. I called them back just now, but I guess they're out, so we're playing phone tag now, haha. I left a message saying that I'd love to meet tomorrow if possible, and that I have school late today, so I can call them back after 8:30pm if possible.

SIGH not yet! I submitted the form again an hour ago. Maybe I'll just take the advice given and just call the local ward.

Haha, it's almost the same, except this translation says that there is "wine mixed with water", instead of just "wine and water".

Also, along the same lines, some may be interested in the book "Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Ancient Christianity" by Barry Bickmore. It references various early Christian writings that he sees as supporting LDS beliefs. It can be read in full at the link provided.

I was just reading this person's reading of some of the ECFs on the Eucharist (perhaps an interesting read for LDS who don't hold to the Catholic/Orthodox belief that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ), and found this (from Justin Martyr): But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to genoito [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion. And this food is called among us eukaristia [the eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” (First Apology, 65-66)

Does he say elsewhere what the water was used for? For example, Catholics also bring bread, wine and water, and some water is poured into the wine. I don't know if Justin Martyr was referring to a similar practice. Also, he seems to be referring to a belief in "Real Presence" in the first paragraph, which, from what I understand, LDS do not believe in.

Thanks for sharing CTS. For me, this has been a very long journey. I received my first copy of the Book of Mormon in 2002, when I was in 10th grade. I think I ordered it online, and then the missionaries called, asking if I would like them to deliver it. Of course my parents, being Catholic, said no, so they just mailed it. I've started to read it on and off since then, and right now I'm actually almost done with Jacob (the furthest I've ever gotten). I've read A LOT about the LDS Church, and have participated on another board, Mormon Dialogue and Discussion, for some time now. I've been a pretty active Catholic for most of my life, and I used to go to Mass at the National Shrine in DC, and loved being there (I still miss it). I even posted critically against the LDS faith on a Catholic forum for some time. However, the more I read, especially comparing the LDS beliefs to ancient Judeo-Christian beliefs, the more I wondered "how could Joseph Smith and his companions have known this???" I'm not sure what initially attracted me to the LDS Church. I guess it may have been its belief in still having apostles and prophets. While the Catholic Church does believe in prophets in the sense of people receiving revelations, usually from Mary, these revelations don't need to be believed (since they are termed "private revelation"), and there just seemed to be an over-emphasis on Marian reverence. I don't think that I've received a witness from the Holy Ghost yet on the Book of Mormon, however I do feel...inclinations towards that, where I feel at peace when I read it. I'm still reading it though, so we'll see.

That's wonderful CTS! Let us know how it goes on Sunday. The funny thing is, I've been so interested in reading about the LDS Church for so long that I already have those brochures (I bought them) and also have a copy of Preach My Gospel, Gospel Principles, the Book of Mormon, LDS Bible, etc. If you don't mind my asking, how long did you study with the missionaries until now?

I think that #3, non-member family considerations, is most interesting for me. If I convert, and become engaged to someone LDS, I know that my non-member parents and siblings would take it VERY hard if I only had a temple wedding that they could not be present at. Having a ring ceremony after wouldn't be the same, and I know how upset they would be, since family is so important to them, and they missed out on such an important part of family.

Oh wow. Well I did it online, and it said they'd contact me in a few days...guess I'm just being impatient.

ugh I wish they would call already! haha.

Argh, i can't remember which book I read it in, but I think I remember reading (from a LDS book) that after the Fall, the change to "Lord God" was to show that instead of dealing with the Father (God), the people were now dealing with Jehovah, the Mediator, the Lord God.

But I don't think that LDS use the word "being" as it is used by Trinitarians, so I don't necessarily think that one could compare the Trinity definition of "one being, three persons" to the Godhead definition of "three persons/beings", since LDS are using "person" and "being" interchangeably, while Trinitarians are not (so that these words refer to two different things).

This post sufficiently addresses your argument. As already mentioned, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed implicitly addresses the Trinity when it states that Jesus is "one in Being" with the Father. The Trinity is explicitly addressed in the Athanasian Creed. No Trinitarian would claim that the doctrine of the Trinity comes from Nicaea alone. If they have, please cite a source. Instead, Trinitarians would say that the Trinity is found in the Bible (generally by referring to multiple verses and coming to a conclusion based on all of them), and was formally defined through various Ecumenical Councils, with the Council of Nicaea, and the Nicene Creed, addressing the issue of the relationship between the Father and the Son, concluding that the Son is "consubstantial" or "one in Being" with the Father, which is of course part of the definition of the Trinity doctrine.

question: do these meetings have to be during the evening? If so, what times count as "evening"?

The purpose of the Nicene Creed, and the Council of Nicaea, wasn't to define the Trinity. It was to address the issue of Jesus' relationship to the Father. The Trinity is therefore indirectly addressed when the Nicene Creed states that the Son is "one in Being" with the Father. And that is what the Trinity is about, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct, yet are "one in Being". The bolded parts do not disprove the Trinity. In the Creed, we see that the Father is referred to as "one God", yet Jesus is also referred to as God ("God from God"), and is said to be "one in Being" with the Father. This is standard Trinitarianism. The Creed that addresses the Trinity is called the Athanasian Creed.

So I recently submitted the missionary request form found on Mormon.org, and while I eagerly await their phone call, I was wondering if someone could let me know what I should expect for this first meeting. Thanks!

Yes, I like that part too. :)

thought everyone would like to know that I submitted the Missionary Request form on Mormon.org, so we'll see how this goes...

Trinitarians believe that this problem is solved by the doctrine of the "hypostatic union". Basically, Christ has two natures (or two "essences"). Christ is therefore one with the Father in His divine essence, which is not affected by his human essence.

don't know if this is helpful, but according to this article: "Still, Mormons’ numbers in Manhattan have increased by about 50 percent in the past 10 years, though overall they remain a tiny percentage of the population—the community has gone from 3,225 practicing Mormons in December 1997 to 4,853 by the end of September 2007, according to figures supplied by a church spokesman." Of course that says nothing about the numbers in the outer boroughs of the City.

I'd love to read your blurb. I'm not LDS (yet), but I live in Long Island and work/go to school in NYC, and am also curious about this. I've seen missionaries in Queens a few times, but oddly, I've never ran into them in Manhattan.

Except that the small pox virus wasn't created in the image and likeness of God.

I agree. I also think that this thread has run its course and perhaps may well be closed. I would just like to say that it really isn't about "bickering" for Trinitarians. The words "person" and "being" are used in a specific way in the Trinity doctrine, and it is the misunderstanding of this (i.e. saying that "person"="being") that leads to these discussions, and confusing it with Modalism. I would like to close with a link to an article I wrote on my blog, which further expounds (in addition to the articles I already linked to) on this important issue in any Trinity vs. Godhead dialogue: The Traditional Concept of the Trinity