Jason_J

I've actually had the opposite experience in my study of the Latter-day Saint faith, including all the years prior to my conversion. I think the issue is when we get into speculative/non-essential teachings (or what is termed "theologumen" in the traditional realm). Perhaps. In all honesty, this isn't something that I really even think about (and I would wager that it's the same for most Latter-day Saints). Yes, I believe that through Christ, we can become joint-heirs with Him, become like God, live the life that God lives (since we are participating in that life), and inherit all things through Christ. My point as far as whether we will be our "own Deity" is that the implication of such a phrase (whether you intend it as such, I am not sure) is that we no longer need the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. In reality, LDS exaltation states that God will always be our God, and that the gift of eternal life from Him is tied to Him and the atonement of Jesus Christ. Indeed, our belief is that eternal life/exaltation includes living in the eternal presence of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in Heaven. Yes. However I believe that what the mortal experience of God the Father entailed goes into speculation, and I also think that it is perfectly acceptable for a Latter-day Saint to believe that the Father was Divine and God during His mortal incarnation, just as Jesus Christ was. Actually, I think it is quite clear that Latter-day Saints would agree with your statements in the paragraph that I responded to. Sure, we disagree with Catholics and others on various aspects of salvation, what Heaven is like, what it means to be deified, etc. We do not deny that (indeed, we claim to be a restoration of true doctrine and priesthood). The point of my post was that Latter-day Saints do not believe that we can receive eternal life through our own works, or independent from God, the atonement of Jesus Christ, etc, or that our love of Christ does not motivate us to follow Christ's commandments and enter into sacred covenants with God. Eternal life is a gift from God for the Latter-day Saint, and God asks for our cooperation in that, by following His commandments, as evidenced in the Bible. Why would they even need to be reconciled? Latter-day Saints certainly aren't trying to reconcile our beliefs with more traditional understandings of various doctrines. Indeed, we agree that the foundational doctrines on the nature of mankind and God are at odds, since we do claim to have the restored (and further revealed) understandings of those beliefs. Yes, Latter-day Saints that free will (also known as "agency" in our belief) has always been operative, and Adam and Eve made a choice. If Adam and Eve did not partake, they would not have known good and evil, they would have remained in the Garden of Eden, and they would not have had children (since they didn't even know that they were naked).

I know , just curious about the traditional line of thinking as to how they could have multiplied if they didn't know they were naked.

I've always wondered, how could Adam and Eve have been fruitful and multiplied if they didn't know they were naked?

This is not a valid distinction, as others have already noted. Latter-day Saints most certainly do not believe that we attain our eternal destiny through our own efforts of progressing. Instead, we fully agree that it is only through the saving grace of Christ that we are saved, and that our cooperation in Christ's atonement is what brings us to eternal life. I am not sure what you are implying by becoming "our own deity", however Latter-day Saints believe that exaltation is tied to being joint-heirs in and with Jesus Christ, through His atonement, and that we never are "independent" from God, as if we do not need Him. Latter-day Saints would agree with everything you cite as the Catholic viewpoint. Our works are also a symptom of our love for God, and it is because of our love for our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, that we choose to follow His example, to follow His commandments, and to enter into saving, sacred covenants with God. Our eternal life is not something that we can receive just being doing mere works (this is not a "works-based salvation" system, as commonly caricatured by some critics, a charge that I have also seen leveled at the Catholic Church numerous times), but it is a gift from God received through our cooperation with His commandments, due to our love for Him.

I agree. I understand the point he was getting at, but his logic wasn't too sound, and I can already see how the critics will use it.

ooo, that looks nice! why can't we have that in Manhattan!

I agree. I was actually telling one of my friends this (he was trying to explain the WoW to a coworker), but I guess he didn't really "like" that answer.

Hi all, So last night we had a regional YSA fireside (where I and 2 other recent converts shared our stories), after which I went out with a few friends from my ward. Two of us started laughing about how a month or so ago, we went to this restaurant that gave us free green tea ice cream after dinner. That then sparked a discussion about what is and isn't allowed as far as "no coffee, tea, or alcohol" goes. So what's a good answer? We know that there no hot coffee or hot [green or black] tea, but what about iced tea, iced coffee, coffee/tea ice cream, cooking with alcohol, etc? There doesn't really seem to be a consensus on this (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). Thanks!

Well sure, you can discuss on this forum. MDDB is more geared towards debate however, and there are many people over there, LDS, Catholics, Evangelicals, atheists, etc. that engage in debating LDS-related topics. This forum is more geared towards teaching people about what we believe, not necessarily debating about it. But feel free to keep participating! I've gotta run, talk to you later, have a great day!

Right, however that was not the first schism in Christian history. This ignores a lot of history, not only that of the Oriental Orthodox, the Nestorians, etc. The fact is that the canon of the Bible has not been consistent even from the time the "Catholic Church" "set" the canon in 397 AD (which of course was a local, non-ecumenical council). Instead, the various Eastern, Oriental, etc. churches have had canons differing from the Catholic Church, as well as amongst each other, from ancient times to today. I'm sure they all would have a varying opinion as to your statement that the Catholic Church canonized the Bible in 397 AD and that was that. Yes, Latter-day Saints agree. Yes, I'm aware. I don't think we need to discuss differences in theology between the Orthodox and the Catholics in this thread, but suffice to say that in my experience, Orthodox seem to think more about their differences from Catholics than Catholics do. Also, I've always been puzzled by the Catholic claim that churches outside of itself, that are in schism (according to the CC), such as the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, can have valid priesthood and sacraments. It never really made sense to me (the whole "imperfect communion", being in schism from the one true Church yet being in somewhat communion with it, schismatic priesthood, etc). I find the Orthodox view (and of course the LDS view) on the issue of sacraments/ordinances and priesthood outside of itself to make more sense, IMO. The Council of Carthage was a local, non-Ecumenical Council. It did not define the Canon for the entire Church. Also, as mentioned, the Eastern churches, of varying communions, have had a canon different from the Catholic Church's canon from ancient times onward to today. So what happened there, if the canon was apparently established in 397 AD? This issue is really more complex that you are making it out to be. The Reformation was not the first instance of "challenging" the Catholic canon (not necessarily saying that that's what you're implying).

Well I was a very active and well-read Catholic before becoming a Latter-day Saint . Right, so this seems to be talking about the "being" of God, which has not changed, as opposed to the "Persons" of God. As I mentioned, it is quite clear that according to orthodox Trinitarian belief, the Person of the Son underwent a change when He incarnated, since He took on human nature. This is not a comment on the divine nature of the Son, but specifically on the Personhood of the Son. The hypostatic union states that the Person of God the Son took on human nature in addition to His divine nature through the Incarnation, therefore having two natures in one Person. If this is true, then it is clear that God the Son underwent a change, since His Person did not have a human nature prior to the Incarnation. This is what I was talking about in relation to "change" in the Godhead (not necessarily a change in His divinity, but a change in His (the Son) Personhood).

Also StevenVH, if you are interested in debating Latter-day Saint theology, perhaps you would be interested in posting at Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board, which is an LDS board geared more to debating LDS theology. A few Catholics also participate there.

This does not seem technically correct from the Trinitarian viewpoint. Are you using "person" and "being" interchangeably here? While Latter-day Saints do so, Trinitarians do not. "Person" in the Trinity is referring to something different from "Being". Or, as Sheed says in Theology and Sanity, "Being" is the "what", "Person" is the "who". Also, don't you believe that God is three Persons, not one, so He would be unchangeable in "his persons", not "person". Also, it is quite clear that the person of the Son changed, since He incarnated. The hypostatic union states that God the Son took on a human nature, in addition to His divine nature, united in one Person (hypostasis). Therefore, since the Son did not have a human nature prior to the Incarnation, His Person (which you said is unchangeable above) changed.

I think that these articles sufficiently address this alleged contradiction: Mormonism and the nature of God/Unchanging - FAIRMormon Does the Mormon God Change The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis - Blake T. Ostler - FARMS Review - Volume 8 - Issue 2 (this one is a little long, however the pertinent portion is section 4) All of these articles address the issue of what exactly it means to say that God is unchanging (i.e. what about God is unchanging).

While I don't agree that the Catholic Church began with Constantine, I think your above post is equally lacking in historical nuances of Christian history. I can just as validly claim that the New Testament is an Eastern Orthodox document, or an Oriental Orthodox document, etc. There indeed were many other churches in existence at that time, and there are indeed various other churches that have as valid a claim of apostolic succession as the Catholic Church (and the Catholic Church itself recognizes the apostolic succession of these churches, such as the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, etc). So you are incorrect in claiming that "There was no other church in existence at that time and there is no other church that can trace a line of succession all the way back to Peter today." if we use the Catholic Church's own standards of apostolic succession in other non-Catholic churches. Also, as far as the canonization, are you talking about establishing the entire Biblical canon or just the New Testament canon? If the former, using the Catholic Church's own standards, the early councils on the canon were not Ecumenical, therefore they weren't universal binding canons on the Church. It wasn't until the Council of Trent that the Canon was infallibly declared, according to your church. Indeed, there have been varying canons throughout history, from very early on, with the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox using canons that differ from the Catholics, and have done so since ancient times.

Right, and this verse is specifically referring to the oneness of the Father and the Son, asking us to become one with each other just like how the Father and the Son are one with each other.

Yes, Latter-day Saints completely agree with all of those verses listed above. Yet you do not explain what this "more than just purpose" oneness is (and interestingly, "oneness of being" does not exist in the Christian Scriptures either), and the fact is that the Bible never states anything on that oneness of the Godhead other than what Latter-day Saints believe: that we are to be one with each other as the Father and the Son (and the Holy Ghost) are one. Further, Latter-day Saints believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are considered to be "one God" (and are referred to as such in our additional scriptures) due to their oneness of mind, will, love, and purpose. This isn't a question about whether we believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are "one God". The question is what does "one God" mean. Interestingly, Jews regard the Trinity doctrine as a heresy and not monotheistic, since you are introducing plurality (i.e. three distinct divine Persons) into the absolute unity of God.

No, there is no confusion as to who God is in Latter-day Saint theology. "God" can refer to the Father only (such as in Ephesians 1:3, 1 Corinthians 8:5-6, etc), it can refer to the Son, it can refer to the Holy Ghost, and it can also refer to all Three collectively (also known as the "Godhead"). We worship all Three, however we pray to the Father in the name of the Son, in the Spirit. There is no confusion here.

Latter-day Saints use "saint" to refer to a member of the Church, those who are in Christ, in accord with the Biblical teaching. Following this definition, no, we do not recognize Catholic "saints" as "saints" (nor do we recognize Orthodox saints as such either). However, we do not discount people who reverence God in any faith. While they may not have had the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, they certainly can (and have) exercised faith in Christ, and we don't believe that God limits His interactions with only those that are part of the Church of Jesus Christ. As rameumptom said, many of them were "saintly" people (as are found in various other faiths).

I think the issue here is simple (at least to me). In New Testament times, Jesus Christ established only one Church (not many with conflicting beliefs). That one Church had apostles, prophets, bishops, deacons, teachers, etc. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims to be a restoration of that one Church. I don't really see it as arrogant to claim to be the "one true Church". Instead, I see it as a claim consistent with what the Bible teaches, namely, that Christ established one Church.

In addition to what has already been said, I also find the parallels between the Book of Abraham and other ancient texts fascinating, especially when the critics would have you believe that Joseph Smith just made it up: LDS FAQ: Ancient Evidences for the Book of Abraham: Other Records Confirm its Story

I wasn't commenting on doctrinal differences on the nature of the Godhead and Jesus Christ though. I of course agree that there are differences in our understandings of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Such differences don't change the fact that "Latter-day Saints agree that the Way is Jesus Christ and it is to Him that we turn, and that we return to Him, wounded, every time we confess our sins. He is the only Way. Latter-day Saints agree.". We firmly believe this.

So the investigator is supposed to automatically know what is opinion and what is doctrine? If an investigator googles "blacks and the priesthood", and finds posts in this thread that say blacks are closer to Satan, I wouldn't want blessings from "the black man", etc., then they'd leave thinking "wow, they are racist!". Do you think the critic even cares when they copy/paste what someone says and states "look, this is what Mormons believe, they are racist!". You really don't know how this works. And again, the issue is not about having opinions. It is about whether the opinions are consistent with the Church of Jesus Christ's teachings.

And again, the issue is not about having opinions, it is about whether said opinion is consistent with the teachings and scriptures of the Church of Jesus Christ. Of course, however neither situation (not receiving ordinances from someone that holds the priesthood just because of their race) has any scriptural basis, and that is the issue.

No, it's not paranoid, it's how forums work. People lurk, find the thread through google, etc., read the posts, and form their own ideas.