Jason_J

Don't worry, it is a very complex thing to attempt to understand. No, that would not be a good analogy, because you are only one person. The Trinity is three distinct Persons (who are not each other). What you describe is more akin to Modalism, which, essentially, is that God is one Person that has different "masks" or "roles", depending on the situation.

Thanks, that was very helpful. I have an eBook copy of Increase in Learning, and I just bought Act in Doctrine as well. I'll definitely be prayerfully reading them, thanks for the suggestions.

That's great, I would like to have my EQ unified and active! Singing at Sacrament is a great idea, I like that.

Thanks, that's really helpful! I've been in the calling for over a month now (we haven't had church for a couple weeks though because of Hurricane Sandy, and our stake decided to have Mormon Helping Hands service projects for the last 2 weekends (including Sunday, after a short Sacrament Meeting). One of the things I've had a problem with is having brethren volunteer for things, like church building cleaning. I know that the last EQP assigned brethren to do things like the Bishop's storehouse when it was our ward's turn, but I don't think he assigned people to do the cleaning. I guess I felt a little wary about assigning members to do things, but it's something I've thought about doing lately, since it's so hard to have people volunteer for things, at least at this time. So this was really helpful, thanks! FYI, for everyone, this is a YSA ward, if that makes a difference.

Hey all! So I've been called as the elders quorum president for my ward (yes, crazy, right?). I've read 'The Effective Elders Quorum", and everything in the church handbook. I was wondering, does anyone have any other tips/resources/advice that would be helpful? Also, what sorts of activities do elders quorums generally like to participate in (since I've been a member, we haven't really had that many quorum activities, just ward ones). Thanks!

This is a shorthand version of the commandments for Catholics. Catholics sometimes include the "graven images" portion in the 1st commandment. It is not ignored/deleted or anything else some people claim. The Catholic Church Changed The Ten Commandments? Graven Images: Altering the Commandments? :: Catholic News Agency Did Catholics rewrite the 10 Commandments?

I think it's clear that a similar phenomena can be found amongst Catholics, where they have very different understandings on various issues amongst themselves (the discussions on various sub-forums over at CAF, especially the Traditional Catholicism and Apologetics forums, with various debates and discussions amongst Catholics, evidences this). The question for both is whether these different understandings are really misunderstandings, as well as understandings that do not comport with official teachings and revealed doctrines. As would a Latter-day Saint.

Again, the article I linked to demonstrates why that is not the case.

Um, unfortunately none of this explains the historical fact that the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East were separate churches prior to 1054 AD (Oriental Orthodox say this about themselves as well). Oriental Orthodoxy is not Eastern Orthodoxy, and the schism involving Oriental Orthodoxy happened in the 5th century. So no, they not "all 'Catholic'" until 1054 AD, as the examples of the Oriental Orthodox churches (schism in the 5th century) and the Assyrian Church of the East demonstrate, for a start. Also, as far as "nearly identical" doctrines, well, as I have already pointed out, that is the common Catholic view (I have seen it many times at CAF), however it is not shared by many, if not most Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox (as I have seen many times at Orthodox forums). I believe I linked to a few articles documenting Orthodox views on that matter.

The Oriental Orthodox, the Assyrian Church of the East, among others.

Yep, as a Latter-day Saint, I believe all of those, and like I mentioned, Latter-day Saints do not "ignore" any promises made by Jesus Christ. Please read the link I provided.

Latter-day Saints do not ignore any promises of Christ. Mormon Answers: Questions about the Restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ (Apostasy, Authority, Restoration)

Like I mentioned, Catholics tend to be more "forgiving" on this matter than Orthodox. This is readily seen on the multitude of debates over on Catholic Answers Forum (and some Catholic posters have even said as much), and can be seen at Orthodox Christianity Forums and Monachos. Orthodox certainly wouldn't accept a belief that they are "the other lung" to the Catholic Church. And many Orthodox apologists and scholars would not agree that "the foundational doctrines held by the Church since the beginning are believed by both without any difference" (that depends on what you are referring to as the "foundational doctrines"). Also, the Papacy is a very interesting issue, since that's one of the things I was thinking about when I mentioned that Catholics and Orthodox look at the same ECFs, the same history, and come to different conclusions. How many discussions have I seen at CAF where each side slings ECF quotes at the other to prove/disprove whether the Bishop of Rome had universal jurisdiction and supremacy. There are books by Catholics and books by Orthodox (I have them) quoting the Church Fathers to prove their view on that matter. Very interesting in light of this discussion. So, while I appreciate your perspective, shared by many Catholics, it is not shared by many Orthodox when discussing their relationship with the Catholic Church. Orthodox Christian Information Center provides a little taste of that, FWIW.

No problem.

I agree that this interpretation of my post is "silly", however that is certainly not what I was stating at all. Post #57 explains what I am saying. I am most definitely not comparing the distance between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches with that between the Catholic Church and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (and as a believer in the apostasy and restoration of the fulness of Truth, I never would make such a comparison). Also, the number of "break away sects" from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has nothing to do with anything (I never brought up anything related to break away groups in relation to traditional Christianity). I think you are reading too much into my posts. What I did mean is exactly what I stated: Catholics look at Christian history, the Ecumenical Councils, the ECFs, etc, and see that they apparently have "maintained its original doctrines intact". Orthodox on the other hand (evidenced by the multitude of articles written on this, as well as posts by Orthodox on various forums I've read) would say that the Catholic Church has not "maintained its original doctrines intact", but has innovated, is heterodox, etc., and the Orthodox Church alone has "maintained its original doctrines intact". They say this after looking at the same history, ancient Ecumenical Councils, the ECFs, etc. This page is just one example of such views (doesn't seem to allow direct link, click "Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy), as does this one . Catholics generally tend to be more forgiving on the differences than Orthodox, in my experience. My point is about looking at history and drawing conclusions. I, and many others, look at history and see evidences for an apostasy, as well as a Divine restoration of true doctrines and practices. StephenVH, and many others, sees evidences for the continuity of the Catholic Church and the Divine hand in that through hardship. Orthodox see evidences for the innovations and heterodoxy of the Catholic Church, and the continuity of the Orthodox Church with the original ancient Faith. The point is that it is a matter of perspective, and just because someone doesn't see "good evidences" for the apostasy and restoration doesn't mean that they aren't there or that others don't recognize such, anymore than just because I don't see "good evidences" for the Catholic Church being the "one true Church" doesn't mean that they aren't necessarily there or that others don't recognize such.

Yep, definitely a matter of perspective. Orthodox, looking at the same history, the same Ecumenical Councils, the same ECFs, etc., would disagree on "maintained its original doctrines intact". I personally would also agree with their assessment on that, but again, matter of perspective.

Here are a few more of my thoughts on this: Firstly, history is a very interesting thing. It is quite fascinating to me to see the multitude of arguments between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox (and you can add in the Oriental Orthodox and Nestorians/Church of the East if you want) who are looking at the same history, the same events, reading the same Church Fathers, and coming to different conclusions on a number of issues, including ecclesiology. It's been my observation that Catholics tend to be more...forgiving in their attitude towards the Eastern Orthodox than the Orthodox are to Catholics (especially as far as how similar and/or different they are, validity of sacraments, etc). More frequently, I've seen many Orthodox (especially clergy out of those) state that the Catholic Church is heterodox, has innovated doctrines that had no place in the early Church, etc etc. It's also fascinating when I read dialogues between Catholics and Orthodox where they sling proof texts from the ECFs at each other, yet understand them differently. This is interesting to me, in light of the present discussion, because history can be interpreted differently by various parties. Sure, we're looking at the same history, but the understanding can be different in various cases, and not just between Latter-day Saints and traditional Christians, but even within traditional Christianity, including amongst the oldest traditional churches. As has already been presented in this very thread, Latter-day Saints believe that there certainly are historical evidences for the Great Apostasy. Those are only a sample of the work done by various Latter-day Saint apologists and scholars (the two are not necessarily the same) putting a belief in an apostasy of the Church and a restoration of the Church in historical context. Now, you will understand such historical evidences differently than a Latter-day Saint, as a Catholic, with your "preconceived notions" (a term I have seen you use here and elsewhere), in the same way that a Catholic and Orthodox would understand various issues in the ancient Church differently as well with their own "preconceived notions". It is also interesting when people from other camps look at that history and come to their own conclusion (maybe that the Catholic perspective is the "historically correct" one, or the Orthodox, or whatever), including with the Latter-day Saint view(s) on the history of Christianity. Historians have yet to conclusively prove that the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church (or how about the Oriental Orthodox) are the "one true Church", the true continuation of the pre-schism Church, otherwise I'd assume the Ecumenical Patriarch would become Eastern Catholic, or the Pope would become Orthodox, etc. It should also be noted that for Latter-day Saints, both faith and reason are important. a witness of the Holy Ghost is not about some random "feeling", as many critics seem to love to caricature. Latter-day Saints believe that we can ask God anything in prayer in faith, and He can give us an answer (sometimes it is "no"). So, we are quite comfortable asking God whether the Great Apostasy happened. Sure, we can look at what we believe are Biblical and historical evidences, and we can also ask God. Likewise, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a historical event; it actually happened in actual history/time. However, I can also pray to God to know if the resurrection is a true event, one that has important bearing on our eternal life.

Can't say I'm surprised. And as I mentioned, we aren't trying to "impress" you or convince you if anything. What we are doing is showing you resources that many Latter-day Saints find helpful, and presenting Latter-day Saint views on various historical and Biblical issues related to apostasy and restoration. I don't think any of us are surprised that you aren't impressed, anymore than you should be surprised that most of us wouldn't be/aren't impressed with Catholic apologetics and arguments, FWIW. The point is to show you our perspective(s), not convince you of something.

Exactly. I really don't expect StephenVH to change his mind after reading that, nor do I believe he expects us to change our minds after reading what he says either (though of course either could happen in theory). To me and many others, it is abundantly clear, based on the Bible and history, that there actually was an apostasy, that it was predicted, and that there was a restoration, and it too was predicted. I and many others find Biblical and historical support of many of the unique doctrines of the LDS Church. Do I expect StephenVH to find such arguments and evidences compelling? Not really. But then, nor do I find the evidences and arguments put forth by Catholic apologists compelling (not to mention the Orthodox arguments against Catholic arguments on various issues, which I find quite fascinating in light of how each of those churches perceives the other and interprets the same Ecumenical Councils, the ancient, undivided Church and its ecclesiology, etc etc). So really, I think the purpose of forums like this is to understand where someone is coming from, and understand their beliefs. As far as what I have found interesting as related to the Great Apostasy and a Restoration of Christ's Church, I've found the following to be helpful: Mormon Answers: Questions about the Restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ (Apostasy, Authority, Restoration) by Jeff Lindsay (FWIW, I love Jeff Lindsay's website as an introductory apologetic LDS website, especially because it answers so many of the common questions traditional Christians have about Mormonism, and because it links to other helpful resources. It also has many helpful rational arguments for LDS belief and practice). Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity (I love this book. It goes over a host of ancient evidences for the LDS faith as being a true restoration, and that Joseph Smith and/or his associates didn't simply make things all up in the 1800s. It also goes over the apostasy of course. It can be read online) Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy by Noel B. Reynolds Mormonism and Early Christianity by Hugh W. Nibley When the Lights Went Out: Three Studies on the Ancient Apostasy by Hugh W. Nibley

Stephen, I'm not asking you to speculate, I'm trying to understand what you mean by a "spiritual body". The link provided in my last post from Catholic Answers seems to denounce the concept of a "spiritual body" in relation to the resurrection of Christ. Also, I think that the point in Jesus asking them to touch His body was, as He said, to show that He is not merely a spirit, but that He is bodily resurrected, and the fact that they could touch Him means that there is some material or physical component to His glorified body (which of course still allows for the possibility of that body to pass through walls if He so desires). In the context of traditional Christian thought, if spirit is immaterial, and Christ is saying look, I'm not just a spirit, I have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39), then clearly there is a material aspect to His glorified body, and material would mean physical to some degree. I'm not saying that glorified bodies are the same as our bodies are now, but I am saying that they are composed of matter, and are physical, at least to some degree. I would be interested in any Catholic sources that say that glorified bodies are not physical.

So there is no physicality at all associated with Christ's glorified body and our future (by God's grace) glorified bodies? That is interesting. If Jesus said to touch Him, etc. as proof of the resurrection, He was able to eat, etc., I think there is indeed some physicality associated with glorified bodies. Also, traditional Christians believe that God is immaterial, so do you believe a "glorified spiritual body" is composed of material (i.e. not immaterial), and therefore, physical to some degree? This is really what Latter-day Saints mean when we believe that Christ physically resurrected and physically/bodily ascended to Heaven. Yes, His mortal body was changed, put on immortality, incorruptibility, etc., however there is a clear physical component to this (as opposed to Jehovah's Witnesses and Gnostics who would reject such a notion). So the question really is, do "glorified spiritual bodies" have some material component to them, or are they immaterial? If not immaterial but material, then does this mean that there is some physical component to them? Latter-day Saints believe so (and we also believe that spirit is material as well, just a different, more refined type, as we don't believe in the concept of immaterial things). I also see Catholics write things like this that make me wonder about what you are saying (maybe I am misunderstanding you): Was Jesus' Resurrection of a physical or purely spiritual nature?

Latter-day Saints believe that God is "invisible" meaning that He is "unseen". This doesn't mean that He is always invisible, or that it is His nature to be invisible or immaterial (I guess), but that He is not visible to us in most circumstances. Similarly, Romans 1:20 states that "invisible" things were made visible, seen. This is a similar concept.

Thank you for response. You'll find that I (and a few others) are quite familiar with what you posted, as I was a very active and believing Catholic most of my life (I even used to post against Latter-day Saints over on CAF and Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board back in the day, and was very into Catholic apologetics ). When you say that the distinction between "person" and "being" is a uniquely Christian idea originating in the [Catholic] Church, I find that interesting, and think that Latter-day Saints would agree that it did originate there (though we of course would take that differently than Catholics would). I also think that there are components of that understanding found quite clearly in Greek/Hellenic philosophy as well ("hypostasis", "ousia', etc). Naturally you would say that it is two Persons involved, but not two Beings, right? If so, what would be the difference between two Persons involved and two Beings? That brings me to the heart of the matter that I don't think was addressed in your post (which is fine), which I'll bring up at the end of my post. I'm sure you know that the three leaf clover is not a good analogy (and I believe you stated you recognize that all analogies fall short of the Trinity doctrine), because the Trinity doctrine says that the three Persons are distinct, are one Being, and are each fully God (i.e., the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God). So, for the three leaf clover, it would have to say that each leaf is fully the clover right? If you say that it means that each leaf is fully a leaf, then you still have three leaves, right? What is "internal procession" referring to as related to the distinction of Persons? What does that mean, and what does it mean for it to be contained within his being? Also, do you believe there is some material distinction within the Trinity, since the Person of the Son now has a body due to His Incarnation and bodily resurrection and ascension? Finally, as I mentioned above, I don't think the heart of the matter was addressed by your post, at least directly. I will try to post it as a few questions so that it is readily apparent: 1) What does it mean to have three distinct divine Persons be "one Being"? What is "Being" referring to (noting that "Being" is sometimes interchanged with "Substance", "Essence")? What do those words mean? 2) How is monotheism maintained when you have three distinct, divine Persons, who are not each other? Perhaps the answer to #1 will be helpful here. 3) It is frequently stated by traditional Christians that because of Christ's Incarnation, He became "consubstantial" with us (CCC 467, quoting the Council of Chalcedon, says this as well). Now, if He is consubstantial with us, what does that mean as to the relationship between the Father and the Son if the Son is consubstantial with the Father, and that is how they are "one", as they are one in "substance" (or "being")? Is there a difference between the consubstantiality of the Son with humanity, and the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father? 4) What would be the difference between saying three Persons are one Being, and three Persons are three Beings? How would that difference look as related to the Trinity, and how is one more monotheistic than the other? Thanks!

To me, what traditional Christians find "blasphemous" about the possibility of Jesus and Lucifer being brothers is that they believe that Jesus has eternally existed as God the Son, there never was a time that He didn't exist as God the Son, Second member of the Trinity, God. To say or imply that He is the brother of Lucifer would diminish that status, and would be impossible, since Jesus was never created and Lucifer was, according to that belief.

Latter-day Saints differ from many Protestant churches in that we believe that the sacraments, what we call "ordinances", actually "do" something. They also have covenants associated with them. Each ordinance involves a covenant, or simply, a two-way promise. Baptism is done for the remission of sins. Latter-day Saints believe that the Sacrament (what is commonly called Communion or Eucharist) renews that covenant (i.e. we are cleansed from sin), and invites the Spirit within us. Confirmation confers the Holy Ghost. Etc Etc. Yes, baptism is a public statement of belief, as I am sure you would agree, however it also does something, hence why we believe that it is necessary for salvation. Yes, Latter-day Saints believe that those who leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are leaving the fulness of truth for less than the fulness of truth.