Jason_J

Congrats! Let us all know how it goes, I'm excited for you.

So I met with my bishop. The temple prep class should be starting soon, so he'd like me to attend that. He also said that I should meet with him every other week as well to go over things. He said that I should start thinking about a date now, anytime after Feb 20th. Exciting!

Thanks! Yeah, I already know who I'd like to ask to be my escort, I have a good buddy in the ward that I also asked to ordain me an elder. I'm meeting with my bishop in the morning to talk about the temple, as it'll be a year since my baptism/confirmation next month, so we'll see!

Well we do believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the same as the Apostles'/Christ's Church, however we don't believe that that means that it has to look "exactly like" the primitive Church. What it means is that we have the same priesthood authority and power as the ancient Church, that we have apostles, prophets, bishops, elders, deacons, teachers, high priests, etc. just like the ancient Church, that we are guided by revelation, just like the ancient Church, that we perform the ordinances of the ancient Church (baptism by immersion after faith and repentance, confirmation, administering to the sick, ordination by laying on of hands, etc), and that we have restored many beliefs held by the ancient Church (and the ancient Jews). In addition, we also believe that revelation provides further insights into doctrine that may not have been held by the ancient Church, so we do not expect a 1:1 correspondence between the ancient Church and the restored Church.

This of course is just silliness. We don't claim that the ECFs were really aspiring Mormons. What we do claim is that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a restoration of the ancient Church established by Christ, and that certain beliefs have been restored. Therefore, if we find parallels or direct hits to many of our unique beliefs in the writings of the ECFs (especially the ante-Nicene Fathers), then we find support that these beliefs didn't just appear in the 1800s out of the imagination of Joseph Smith and/or his associates. Also, I have noticed a lot of "make believe" going in among a number of Catholics on Catholic Answers Forum as far as Christian history goes (I always am amused when I see the "the Catholic Church was the only Church in existence for 1500 years!!!" refrain over there), in order to prop up faith. The fact is that Judeo-Christian history is not as black and white as many Catholic apologists would have us believe, and I always value the input of Eastern Orthodox apologists, who cut through some of the "make believe" and give their view of Christian history. I notice that you have not directly answered rameumptom's statements. Oh well. Do you post on CAF or MDD? Your posting style reminds me of someone that posts on those forums.

I hope that you see how this statement of yours undermines your argument that LDS "don't believe" that God is [a] spirit.

We do accept God's love. God loves us so much that He wants us to become like Him, and live with Him for eternity.

That is of course a falsehood. Latter-day Saints agree with the scripture that God is [a] spirit.

Perhaps I need to be clear that there is of course a distinction between what the Trinity doctrine actually teaches (which is really what matters), and what many Trinitarians themselves believe (which in many cases borders on modalism, which is not Trinitarian). The Trinity doctrine itself teaches, as found in the Athanasian Creed, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and other official documents, that God eternally exists as three distinct Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, who are not each other.

Hi Dahlia, good to see you too! So I'll find out from the bishop next week about this temple prep class. He mentioned it very briefly to me during tithing settlement, and my good buddy, who's also the ward clerk, mentioned it to me as well (he apparently taught it in another ward). I feel like I'm at the obsessing stage of preparing to be endowed, so I've made a list of scriptures that have been referenced as good to study before the endowment, I plan to read the two manuals from the temple prep class (Endowed from On High and Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple), and I have a bunch of books on the temple as well (another book called Endowed From On High, House of Glory: Finding Personal Meaning in the Temple, The Holy Temple, Temple Worship, The Temple: Where Heaven Meets Earth, Temple Worship Simplified, and Your Endowment). Yes, I know, this is overkill, but I'm really excited, and I love going to the temple and feeling the Spirit there when I do proxy baptisms, and the restoration of the temple is an important part of my testimony. It is exciting!

Thanks, this is exciting! I hope I can invite my missionaries to come as well when that time comes. They mentioned that it should be possible, they have to get permission. Guess I should write letters to them to see how they're doing (they'll be in the mission for another year).

Thanks, I actually have had the limited recommend since March, and I've gone a few times. I love it! Yep, it'll be a year in February. Can't believe it's gone by so quickly. Oh okay, I didn't know that the temple prep class isn't absolutely required. I'll definitely set up a meeting with the bishop to discuss all of this, I'm sooo excited and can't wait. I've got a few books on the temple that I can't wait to read, including the temple prep class manuals. Can't wait for my last final to be done today so I can get into all of them! HAHA! Sigh, I really wish that I could serve a mission, but I don't think that this is a good time, i'm 25, trying to get into either pharmacy or med school, which is another couple years of school, and I don't think my non-member family would understand, and I don't think I could do that to them at this point, since I still live with them for now. Guess being a ward missionary will have to suffice!

Also, I don't see how the Comma Johanneum supports the Trinity at the exclusion of the LDS Godhead, since LDS would agree with the verse that the Father, Word, and Holy Ghost are one.

I think that the key issue here is that of what it means for the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be "one", and whether this is monotheistic. In my opinion, and from discussing this issue many, many times, from both the Catholic and Latter-day Saint perspectives, over the years, I think that the traditional Trinity and LDS Godhead doctrines are closer to each other than many on either side may realize. The problem is that we are using words in different ways. Latter-day Saints follow everyday English in using "being" and "person" interchangeably, therefore we can say that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct/separate beings/persons. In contrast, traditional Christians do not, instead using "being" to refer to one thing, and "person" to refer to something else. Therefore, they would say that the Three are distinct persons, but not distinct beings. This is where much of the confusion comes, from both sides. In this very thread, I see LDS claiming/implying that Trinitarians believe that the Three are the same Person, when Trinitarians don't believe that, instead claiming that they are the same Being, which is something different, to them. I also see a Trinitarian using her definitions of "Being" and "Person" to critique the LDS position, which doesn't work either, since we don't share the same understanding of those words. For example, yes LDS claim that the Three are three beings, however using this to claim that we therefore don't believe in one God because Trinitarians believe that they are only one Being doesn't work, since we are coming from two different perspectives on what those words mean. What we can both agree on is that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct Persons, who are not each other. The question is how are They one? Latter-day Saints believe that they are one in purpose, united in Love, making them "one God". Yes, in one sense, we claim that they are three gods, yet in another, we can also say that they are "one God", united and bonded together in purpose and love. Latter-day Saints agree with the early Christian theologian Origen when he states-"We are not afraid to speak, in one sense of two Gods, in another sense of one God."-Dialog with Heracleides Trinitarians would agree that the Three are united in love and purpose, however they also say that they are united in essence/nature/being, in that they are of the same divine nature, and are the only ones that are of that nature. In all of my reading, even during my time as a Catholic, I cannot see how this results in a doctrine that is any more or less monotheistic than the LDS view. Having three distinct divine Persons, who are not each other, seems to preclude any notion of monotheism. Quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia in this thread have not cleared that up, and in most cases (not necessarily in this thread), the response is usually a variant of "it's monotheistic because we say so", or "since you're not Trinitarian you can't understand because you have preconceived notions". Granted, I have no problem with this, but I do have an issue when this is used as a point of criticism of the restored doctrine of the Godhead.

just bumping this. So I briefly spoke with my bishop during tithing settlement about the temple, and he said (if I remember correctly, it's been a few weeks) that they'd start the temple prep class again at the beginning of next year. Do I need to do anything else to start preparing? Should I actually schedule a meeting with the bishop to discuss it? Also, what is the process like in preparing to go to the temple? By that I mean, do I attend the temple prep class, then after that is finished, I schedule a recommend interview with the bishop, then with the stake president, then if all goes well, I schedule the endowment?

That's because the Trinity doctrine doesn't "make God 'one creature/entity'". Trinitarians believe that God eternally exists as three distinct Persons.

Latter-day Saints agree with what Christ said. The question is, what did He mean by that? Also, even if we accept your view, it is clear that holding a belief in a restoration of Christ's Church means that the gates of Hell didn't prevail, since His Church is here. That's an interpretation of Christ's words, not what He actually stated. We believe that God allows all of us to have free will, and that He won't force us to do something. We believe that the Bible has repeatedly shown a cycle of the truth being given through God's prophets, and the people eventually rejecting it. We believe that this has all been part of God's plan, and in His omniscience, He is aware of the entire salvation history. Also, if you can't believe that Christ would establish His Church and allow it to "die out", do you find it difficult to believe that God would create man and allow them to Fall, disobeying Him? I find the two beliefs quite similar.

Yes, actually we all do agree that God is one. The question is, what is meant by that oneness. Latter-day Saints believe that the correct view (which we also believe is completely Biblical), is that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate Persons/Beings/Entities who are united in purpose, will, love, intent. This functional unity allows them to be called "one God". God is a family. A family is composed of different people, yet is one family. This is a good analogy to the Latter-day Saint view on the oneness of the Godhead. The question for you is, if you believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct Persons, who are not each other, then what do you mean when you say that they are "one Being", and therefore "one God"? What does that definition entail? I already am familiar with this, but I'd like to hear your reasoning. The LDS Church doesn't try to say that three separate beings are really one being. You're right, that doesn't make sense, and the Church of Jesus Christ doesn't make that claim. We believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate beings/persons (we use those terms interchangeably) who are One in that they are of one mind, purpose, love. This makes them "one God" since they are in perfect harmony with each other, and function as a unit. This is similar to other usages of "one" in the Bible, such as a husband and wife being "one flesh". This doesn't mean that they become the same being/person. Similarly, the Latter-day Saint view on "one God" doesn't mean that the 3 distinct Persons are the same being/person. This is how we can same that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are separate in one sense, yet they are considered "one God" in another sense.

awesome, welcome! I'm 25 and live in the NYC area, attending church in NYC.

Hi all. I was baptized this February, and have been attending church practically every Sunday since (excepting when I've been out of town or had to go with my [non-LDS] family). I was recently ordained an elder, so I guess the next step is the temple? How should I approach this? Should I meet with my bishop to discuss this? One of my friends mentioned that they are going to be starting up the temple prep class again, so I assume that I should attend this.

Actually, the second one (being a member of the church for 1 year) is no longer true. According to Handbook 2, pgs 24-25: "Recently baptized brethren ages 18 and older are ordained elders after they have served as priests, developed sufficient understanding of the gospel, and demonstrated their worthiness. No specific time as a member is required." As an example, I was sustained to be ordained an elder yesterday, and I've been a member since February. However, to be endowed, you have to be a member for at least a year.

Which brings me to what I already said: "Even if they did, that isn't what the Trinity doctrine states anyway, so they would be incorrect."

Agreed. In all the years I've been a part of discussions on the Trinity, I've yet to see a Trinitarian describe it as three beings in one person. Even if they did, that isn't what the Trinity doctrine states anyway, so they would be incorrect.

So I will be sustained at stake conference next weekend to receive the Melchizedek priesthood, and I've been thinking about who I would like to ordain me, which brought me to think about the circle. What is the purpose of the circle during ordinations and confirmations? When did it start? Where can I read more about it (I can't seem to find any info). Is there a maximum number of people allowed to stand in the circle for an ordination? Thanks!

In addition, God clearly states, in Genesis 3: 11And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? If Adam and Eve already knew that they were naked, as SteveVH asserts, then why would God ask them who told them that they were naked? The Biblical text is quite clear on what this is about.