Jason_J

No, this is not correct. It doesn't mean that God is no longer spirit. It means that God is not only spirit due to the Incarnation. Also, Trinitarians are specifically talking about God the Son, and not the Father or the Holy Spirit. Since Trinitarians are not Unitarians, Oneness Pentecostals, or Modalists, they affirm that it was only the Son that was born on this earth of the Virgin Mary, and not the Father or the Holy Spirit. So, the Father and the Holy Spirit remain spirit-only, while the Son is both spirit and embodied, according to Trinitarian theology. I think that we have to be clear about what the entirety of the Biblical record states about the creation, as well as what LDS believe on that issue. Jesus Christ did not create the world alone. According to the Gospel Principles manual, He created under the direction of the Father. The chapter on "Our Heavenly Father" says that God the Father created the heavens and the earth and all things that are in them "through His Son, Jesus Christ". It also refers to Alma 30:44 which refers to the "Supreme Creator". Surely if only Jesus is the creator, that verse would not belong in the chapter on Heavenly Father. Also, remember that the Nicene Creed itself, while referring to the Father as "maker of Heaven and earth" also states, in relation to Jesus Christ, "through Him all things were made". This affirms exactly what the LDS Church teaches: creation was done through Jesus Christ, and the Father is also the Creator. Also, Trinitarianism does not teach that the Father and the Son are the same Person. I already referred to non-Trinitarian theologies, such as Modalism and Unitarianism, that believe that. Trinitarians view such a belief as a heresy. Trinitarianism is the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons that are one in being. The word "being" in this context is not used interchangeably with "person", as we may do today. Instead, it is a translation of the word "ousia" (remember that the Trinity doctrine was formulated in a non-English speaking world, so we are using translations of Greek/Latin words), which can refer to the "nature" or "essence" of something. Also, part of orthodox Trinitarian theology is something called the "hypostatic union". This is why the "essence" of God did not change due to the incarnation. The divine nature is distinct from the human nature, so, when God the Son came to this earth, He remained divine, yet He also became human. Jesus thus had two natures, and still has both. And since Trinitarians believe that the Son is distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit, Jesus' incarnation had no effect on Them, since it was only He that came to the earth and became human. See above. The Nicene Creed teaches that through Jesus all things were made ("through Him all things were made"). Thus, the Nicene Creed affirms that God created through Jesus Christ, in accordance with Ephesians 3:9 and Hebrews 1:2. I think you are confused as to how exactly the word "being" is used by Trinitarians. As mentioned, it is not used interchangeably with "person". This seems to be the problem here (and it is a common one). Trinitarians affirm that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons who are of the same essence/nature, which is sometimes also referred to as "being" or "substance", which are translations of the Greek "ousia" and Latin "substantia". Christ truly is God, as John 1 affirms, yet that does not mean that He is God the Father. The Trinity doctrine denies that Jesus was the Father. That is modalism. I think the key to understanding your view of the Nicene Creed is to understand how the word "being" is used (i.e., not interchangeably with person), as well as understanding the "hypostatic union" doctrine, which goes hand in hand with the Trinity.

Yes, I think that the "of one nature" view is compatible with LDS theology, however would it also be correct to say that in LDS thought, we are all of the same nature as the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?

Hi all, I was reading a thread over at Catholic Answers Forum, and one Catholic member posted a question that I am having some difficulty understanding. His post was a little combative, so I'll put it in my own words below: From my understanding, the Great Apostasy was the loss of priesthood authority and keys, since there were no new apostles (which all of Christianity agrees with, as traditional Christians do not believe that there were any apostles after John). Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but LDS believe that only apostles hold the keys of the Kingdom, and the President, the senior apostle, holds all of the keys. The LDS Church was organized in 1830, yet the Quorum of the Twelve wasn't organized until 1835. So, how could Joseph Smith and others exercise priesthood authority if only apostles hold the keys, and the President is the senior apostle? Did Joseph consider himself to be an apostle? Who held the keys on earth prior to 1835 if apostles hold the keys? Thanks!

Congrats!

True, however the key in understanding what Papal Infallibility means is that it's talking about in matters of faith and morals, i.e. in formally defining doctrine. So, I think his question isn't about whether LDS believe that the President of the LDS Church is infallible in everything he says or does (since Catholics don't believe that about the Pope), but whether the President is infallible when he formally defines doctrines. To me, this sounds just like saying "the prophet will never lead us astray", since to me, this means that the President will never formally define false doctrines, which is what Papal Infallibility is saying about the Pope.

Has anyone bought this book yet? It's over 500 pages long, seems to be comprehensive.

That's interesting. Do they believe that there is a Biblical basis for this belief that miracles and spiritual gifts were only for the "Apostolic age"? I guess you're right when you say that it's only a relatively small section of fundamentalists and evangelicals that believe this, since, from what I've read, most churches believe in the continuation of miracles, healings, etc. This seems to leave open the possibility that more scripture could be added if God "chose to reveal new scriptures" in a convincing manner, right? However, at least from the Catholic perspective, there is simply no more [public] Revelation, until the Second Coming.

One thing that I have never understood is the traditional Christian belief that there is to be no more revelation or scripture. Some may believe that revelation/scripture ended with the death of the last apostle, while some may believe that revelation ended with Jesus Christ (usually referring to Hebrews 1:1-2). At least from the Catholic perspective, there is a division of the definition of "Revelation" into Public Revelation and Private Revelation. For Catholics, Public Revelation is what ended with the death of the last apostle. Private Revelations, such as the various Marian apparitions, continue, however they are not required for belief. Public Revelation is contained in scripture (the Bible) and Sacred Tradition. Other traditional Christians may believe that revelation is only contained in the Bible. My question is, where did the belief that public revelation and scripture ended with the death of the last apostle come from?

I like the new website. It includes a lot more general information on the organization of the Church, temples, the plan of salvation, etc., especially compared to the old website. This seems to make it more accessible for non-members (though of course there's also mormon.org). I also like the new Store!

Welcome Jonathan! I also live on Long Island.

That's interesting. Catholicism calls this the "beatific vision", where we no longer have "mediated" experience of God.

I was also going to recommend Latter Days.

If I remember correctly, doesn't the Book of Moses state that the Father was speaking to the Son?

This is not correct for the Catholic position. Catholics will agree with LDS that their leader is fallible like any other, but that when it comes to doctrine, the Pope will not lead the Catholic Church astray. Catholics believe that the Pope is infallible in certain specific, rare situations, when he is defining doctrine. The Pope is not believed to be infallible in everything he says or does.

Ah okay, thanks. I thought about going in to check it out, but I guess I was a little..."scared" to go inside the building since it's also a temple.

Thanks. The article mentions a separate door in the lobby to go into the actual temple, which I saw when I went. I assumed that that's what it was for (very ornate). Is a "distribution center" just like a bookstore or something with all of the things found on the LDS.org catalog?

today i walked by the Manhattan Temple for the first time. It's in a nice area of Manhattan (near museums, the Julliard School, etc). I thought about going inside, since it's a multipurpose building, with the temple, a ward, PR office, and a distribution center in the same building, and thought about going to the distribution center, but decided against it. While I was walking, there was a woman outside the temple smoking, then she went inside. I thought that was REALLY...weird (WoW and all). But, she wasn't really dressed in "Sunday best", and like I mentioned, the building has other church facilities besides the temple, so I assume she was in the PR office or maybe worked in the Distribution Center (can non-LDS work in them?). Odd. Anyway, that's all, it seemed nice from what I could see of the inside first floor. I thought I'd run into missionaries in the area, but I didn't.

Okay, this is what I thought you would say. Would LDS believe that "God as the Burning Bush" is part of the Godhead (in addition to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost)? I believe the answer to that question is the same as the answer Trinitarians would give.

uh, why would they?

This is true. The Nicene Creed as it is recited today is actually the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. The Council of Constantinople added "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father. Who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets". Then, the Roman Catholic Church added the Latin word "filioque", so that the Creed read: "who proceeds from the Father and the Son. " This addition to the creed is not accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Church.

I like Finrock too. he used to post over at Catholic Answers, then left. Come back, we need you over there!

I'm about to get ready for work, but I thought I'd quickly post a question that I've thought about posting for awhile but haven't. At times it seems really easy to leave the Catholic Church for the LDS Church due to certain restored beliefs that I find are clearly restored (creation from pre-existing matter, pre-mortal existence, corporeal God, etc), while at other times I find things that I would miss in Catholicism (liturgy, candles, incense, etc). Obviously I tell my self, if Truth is Truth, it shouldn't matter whether there are candles, incense, etc. So, I'd love to hear the conversion stories of any LDS that were Catholic before, and if they dealt with those feelings. I know that there are those here that came from other faiths, however as a Catholic, I'd really like to hear from ex-Catholics (especially those that were practicing). This thread isn't to judge anyone, but only to share testimonies/conversion stories. Thanks!

What is the difference between home teachers and visiting teachers? Also, I assume that all members are assigned a home teacher, who actually comes to your home to...teach . Has anyone here had to deal with that when the rest of their family is non-LDS? For example, I currently live with my parents, and my family is Catholic. They certainly would not welcome home teachers coming to their home. So how would this situation work out?

For Trinitarians, this is not an either/or situation. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are both one in purpose and one in divine nature. Through "theosis" we become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4), and therefore we become one with God. This seems to fit quite perfectly with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being one in nature (since we become partakers of that nature), and I assume that LDS do not have a problem with that either (though LDS come for the perspective that we already, at our core, are of the same nature as God). Coming from the Catholic/Orthodox perspective, the Bible does not need to say that, because the Bible never claims that it has to say everything in the first place (also, the Bible many times does not use many standard Christian words, nor is it a systematic theology/catechism. What is important is if concepts are at least implicitly there). Since Catholics and Orthodox accept the Ecumenical Councils as inspired of God, then that is sufficient for them to claim that the formal, explicit definition of the Trinity is inspired. A Catholic/Orthodox would not be able to entertain the possibility that the Ecumenical Councils were not inspired, since that is central to their theology and ecclesiology (the Catholic Church actually had its last Ecumenical Council in the 1960s, the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, also called Vatican II).

This is a very common misunderstanding of what mainstream Christianity is teaching when it says that the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit) are the same Being. Mainstream Christianity (i.e. Trinitarianism) does not state that the Father and the Son are the same physical being (i.e. they are not the same person, they are not attached to each other, etc.). Trinitarianism is using a different definition of "being" than is commonly used today (i.e. we use "being" and "person" interchangeably). "Being" instead is used interchangeably with words like "essence", "nature", and "substance". The author Olson in his book "The Story of Christian Theology" defines "being" (more specifically the Greek "ousia", which "being" is a translation of) as the "essential attributes of deity", meaning, the characteristics that are necessary for something/someone to be considered divine. The most important "essential attribute", at least according to the Council of Nicaea (which formally defined the Father and the Son as "homoousios", of the same substance/essence/being) was the Son being co-eternal with the Father, meaning that the Son has always (eternally) existed. This was in contrast to the Arian position that the Nicaean bishops were combating, who stated that the Son was a created entity. With that in mind, Trinitarians interpret the intercessory prayer of Jesus in the same way that LDS do. They both see the Son as praying to the Father. He was not praying to Himself. Similarly, the "us" and "our" in the creation of man ("let us make man in our image") are interpreted by Trinitarians as referring to the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit). When someone asks how Jesus could have been praying to Himself, a Trinitarian would wonder the same thing. This question is best asked to Unitarians, Oneness Pentecostals, Modalists, etc. Trinitarians reject those groups as heretical. So, the important thing here (that most non-Trinitarians and many Trinitarians themselves do not understand) is to realize that "being" and "person" are not being used in the way that we do today (interchangeably), but mean two different things in the context of Trinity doctrine (remembering that the Trinity doctrine is over 1000 years old, and the words we are using are translations of the original Greek, which was then translated into Latin). Trinitarians firmly believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons, one in being/essence/nature. Finally, I'll end with a paragraph from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that I always quote in these discussions: 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 hope that helps!