Shelly200

Yes, most Earthly examples won't work in encompassing the Trinity, because the Trinity isn't of Earth. Those examples are used mostly to teach children and people who are coming from a non-Trinitarian background in order to show the simpliest, most basic concept. And I'm sure there are many Trinitarians who sometimes fall into the trap of heresy, but really, the majority of lay Christians don't try to unravel the mystery all that much or often. The only example I've heard that comes closer to the concept of the Trinity than say, three fingers on a hand, would be H2O... can be a solid, liquid, or gas... but is always H2O. Even this is not perfect, because the same gallon of H20 cannot really be all three phases at the same time (and Trinitarians believe God exists eternally in all three Persons), but the simplest, most basic concept is there I think. Any thoughts on this example, anyone?

What speculation are you refering to? I'm not aware of any mainline Protestants or Catholics who speculate about a mother to do any creating.

As a former Southern Baptist, I know all about the "once saved, always saved" doctrine. Now, Southern Baptists make up the largest Protestant denomination in America, this is true. But not all Protestants, and no Catholics, believe in the always saved doctrine. The problem is, as commenters have been saying, the difference in justifcation and sanctification. Most evangelicals believe the words to be interchangeable/synonyms. However, those who do not hold to the always saved doctrine understand that we are saved through justification, but that sanctification is a life-long thing. (The Catholic Church does an excellent job of teaching about sanctifying grace, and how our sins turn us from God.) Happiness and unhappiness is subjective. There are happy and unhappy people in every religion, race, gender, economic class, etc. A lot of Evangelicals take happiness from their belief in being saved "once and for all" and being able to never have their names "erased from the Lamb's Book of Life." But often, the real happiness isn't through the thought that they can sin as much as they want and it's okay (which, ironically, is actually how they veiw Catholics-- "You (Catholics) can do whatever you want and then just go to Confession!" Anyone who says this has no idea what Confession is really about, and has probably never been to it before.). I think the real happiness (in all religions) comes from loving God and our neighbor -- the two greatest commandments. One thing both the Catholic and LDS churches have in common is the idea of good works being a part of our faith -- faith without works is dead, and all that. Incidentally, it is through doing good works that many Evangelicals gain a sense of happiness. Who doesn't delight in doing the things of the Lord? And if you believe the Lord and/or His church forbids the drinking of coffee, or alcohol, or smoking, or whatever else, then it would be delightsome to obey His commands. The same (should) go for any religion -- keeping kosher, not using contraception, not drinking alcohol (ahem, *most* Evangelicals believe it is wrong to drink alcohol [but do it anyway], so I'm confused as to what kind of church you FIL attends), dressing modestly, not eating cows, abstaining from all food for certain days, etc. It is when we begin looking at God's commands as chores/annoying things we *have* to do, instead of things we *want* to do to please our Creator that people start feeling unhappy. Most people who fall away from a rule-laden church (many ex-Catholics make the same claim - "it is impossible to follow all these rules") are just unable to untie themselves from their own religious concepts, or their own sins, or their own desires -- and then mock those who have self-discipline. Anyway-- one thing I like to do is ask the "once saved, always saved" folks about the "horrible cases." Most Evangelicals have an extremely easy time believing they, their family, and their church are all saved no matter what sin they commit... but have a hard time using this concept across the board for every Christian sinner and every sin (even though, to them, sin is sin and there are no worse sins than others).

Just FYI, Newt Gingrich is a Catholic, and the Catholic Church does not teach this doctrine.

Jason_J gives a good explanation of the definition for "being" in the Trinitarian concept being different from the definition that the LDS members are using, which is confusing everyone. It can be found on this thread on page 29. The defintion that Trinitarians use for the word "being" is an older definition, that is mostly not in use anymore. The LDS members are trying to use the more modern definition to fit the Trinitarian formula, and it isn't working. The concept of the Trinity is centuries old, and Trinitarians have kept the same wording for its explanation throughout the years. We are all trying to use the same words, but put different meanings behind them and then getting confused/frustrated when we all keep running into each other and making no progress. But I believe some people are making headway with the idea. Once again, it is a difficult concept to grasp if one hasn't grown up with it, or heard it explained before, or if it's unfamiliar. In the end, most Trinitarians don't think about the concept of the Trinity very often in depth. They believe it, and live their lives accordingly. I think the Catholic Church does a more thorough job of bringing the Trinity into its liturgies and prayers -- there are prayers specific to each Person within the Trinity, to the Trinity as a whole, and the Trinity is mentioned very frequently -- but still, most Catholics don't dwell on the nuances of trying to work the concept out in their minds. For some, yes, it is blind faith, pure and simple. There are people in every religion who take it on blind faith. But for others it is something they have researched, deemed True, and then moved on. We're not all St. Thomas Aquinas, who lived his life researching, learning, and writing about theological issues. The important thing, more important than 3 equaling 1 (which we understand doesn't make logical human sense... we say it is a mystery, and that God is above our human sense, so He doesn't have to fit into our idea of "logic"), in my opinion, is that God alone is divine; humans are not of the essence/being/nature/person/species/any similar word that God is. We are completely separate from Him and His angels. We believe we cannot become God, or become like Him, through our own means, through any sort of progression. This concept is extremely important in the non-LDS definition of who God is.

Does the same standard apply to men? I was under the assumption that a widower may re-marry if he wishes. I know I saw a talk given by a leader in the church earlier this year in which the man was on his second marriage because his first wife died. Is he sealed to his first wife only? To both wives? If only to one, then what happens to the other wife?

Forgive me, because I read the BofM only once, and it was a few months ago, so I might be remembering wrong. This whole chapter is a little confusing to me. I see God showing His finger to a man -- "and it was as the finger of a man, like unto flesh and blood" -- and then the man saying that "I knew not that the Lord had flesh and blood" meaning that he wasn't aware the Lord had flesh, but after seeing Him he now knows that He does. But then the Lord says "thou hast seen that I *shall* take upon me flesh and blood," which, to me, means that He doesn't have flesh *yet.* Later on He says that this is His spirit body. I was not aware that the spirits had spirit bodies; I assumed spirits did not have bodies at all. And then we learn that this is really Jesus, not God the Father. And Jesus says that He is "the Father *and* the Son" and that anyone who believes in His name shall be His sons and daughters. What confuses me here is that by the end of the passage we learn that this is a vision of Christ, not God the Father. So the book was using "God" to mean Jesus. However, I thought that Christ was God's spirit Son, as well as all of the population of the Earth. So how can those who believe in Christ be His sons and daughters? Aren't they really His brothers and sisters? And didn't God the Father create Christ and all of the Earth's population? Because this passage clearly states that Christ is speaking, and that He says "And never have I shown myself unto man whom *I have created.*" So... I would love some help in understanding this passage. Does the BofM commonly use "God" and "the Lord" to represent both God the Father and Jesus Christ? Perhaps that is what is confusing me so much.

This was a very good basic explanation of the problems with the Trinity debate. As someone who very recently converted the Catholic Church, I'm curious as to what some of the doctrines were that led you to the LDS church. The only LDS members I know grew up in the church; the only converts I know of weren't religious to begin with. I'm curious as to how a conversion to such a different theological mindset goes. One thing about converts that is great, though, is that they can see the different perspectives on both sides of the debates. That is very helpful.

Can someone clarify for me, then, what the LDS view of Scripture is, especially in reference to the Bible? I understand that the church uses the KJV exclusively, but I always assumed it (the church) took a similar stance to all of their scriptures as many Protestants do -- that they are the inspired Word of God. But this does not appear to be the case here, since Joseph Smith did not believe the entire Bible to be inspired. So what exactly is the LDS teaching on the Bible? All inspired? Only parts? Which parts? And why keep parts in that *aren't* inspired? The Protestants had no problem cutting out the deuterocanonical books during the Reformation; why didn't Joseph Smith follow suit? And why is the KJV the most correct translation of the Bible? Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm going off my memory of things I looked into years ago, but didn't the KJV have thousands of errors in it that needed to be corrected? Was Joseph Smith undergoing to create his own translation of the Bible during his lifetime? I know he had translated parts of the Bible... if he had completed the whole thing, would that version be used over every other?

...didn't someone in the BofM go blind or die because he saw the finger of God? That would suggest God has a physical body, in my opinion.

I'm slightly confused as to your "man can be born as an ant" analogy... but I think this paragraph is agreed by all. Catholic and Protestants alike believe that Christ being born of a mortal woman *does* speak volumes about Him and His relationship to us. When we look at the Bible in its entirety, when we interpret events based on the entirety of Salvation History, we view Christ's birth as nothing short of a miracle. Christ was born of a mortal woman, but Christ was God, not mortal; therefore His conception and birth are sen as a miracle. And having God enter into the New Ark (Mary), a mortal human woman, and become fully divine and fully human... well it speaks volumes about who God is: His love, mecy, compassion, willingness to do anything for His people, as well as His relationship to us. For us, the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus is made all the more wonderful when we see that Jesus is God, and that he deigned to take on humanity, that He deigned to come down and dwell among us, His own creations, and live with us, suffer from us, and die for us and for the salvation of our souls. His birth, life, death, and rising are wonderful, miraculous, amazing, awe-inspiring events, and we worship Christ with all the more joy, gratitude, and enthusiasm when we view those events in this light. I guess my paragraph above could be read in response to this as well. We read the same words, we understand the same events, we just view them from a different perspective I guess. And God does not have to fit into our human logic; otherwise He wouldn't be God (He would finite, able to be fully understood, not at all lofty enough, in my opinion, to be a God worthy of my worship). I'm sure there are numerous books, written by experts in many different denominations and written by experts in Catholicism, that would be able to give a lengthier, more thorough, and more researched answer to the doctrine of the Trinity than anyone could give through sporadic writings back and forth over a website forum. It seems like this is a doctrine you really want to learn more about -- if not to agree with it, than to simply understand it better -- and so I would highly recommend you puruse Amazon for some books on the matter, if you have some free time. If you'd like, I'd suggest the book "The Trinity:An Introduction to Catholic Doctrine on the Triune God" by Gilles Emery. I have to confess to never having read it myself, but from the description of the book and the few pages you can scan on Amazon, the fact that it was written by an ordained priest, and that it was published by a Catholic publishing company, it looks like it would be a sound explanation of the Trinity from a Catholic perspective. (Although I should warn that it does not have a seal of Impramatur or a Nihil Obstat, which are endorsements by bishops to show that they have read the book and found nothing contrary to the Faith in them. So it has not been offically given the stamp of approval from a Catholic bishop. Still--from what I can see, it looks like a good start.) Once again, that's just a suggestion if you desire further study from one more prepared to answer theological questions. Most Christians do not feel there is a dilemma that needs to be solved. Remember the Catholic Church has had these doctrines for two millenia, and the Protestant churches for centuries. Our side of the story is that we've had our doctrines for so long, and now there's a new kid on the block saying we've had it all wrong. To us it's the LDS who are creating new meanings for long-held words and doctrines. We're on different sides of the story, with different backgrounds, coming to conclusions with different histories and different instilled ideas. It's kind of like culture shock. This is a fundamental difference between LDS and non-LDS. And is another example of culture shock: we already have centuries of doctrine and instilled belief telling us that God has always been God as He is now; He has not progressed; He was never anything different than or less than He is now. And we humans are not of the same species as God, and are not able to become god through progression. To non-LDS this is something completely foreign and totally new... most would say a tradition of man. We are coming at the idea of God from two completely different perspectives. I think the important thing, though, is for everyone to be able to share their perspectives with everyone else. So that, in a non-intrusive or condescending way, we can all learn about the similarities and differences among us, and, in the end, continue to treat each other like the creations of God that we all think we all are. As to the Trinity, you may never understand it in the way that we do; just as we may never understand LDS doctrines in the way you do. But maybe you can understand where we're coming from in our belief, what our perspective is.

Thank you for not making me say it.

The Trinity is one Being with three Persons. The Persons of the Trinity are distinct, but they are of the same Being. The Trinity is not multiple Beings; that would mean He is multiple gods, which the Catholic Church does not believe. As I said, I'm not a professional theologian, but this is the basic principle of the Trinity. Once again, I like the analogy of Love: God is Love (not *like* love, He *is* Love), and in Love there is the Beloved, the Lover, and the Love they share. This is one beautiful way to think of the Trinity. And also, once again, words can have multiple uses. I have said that Christ is not God's Son in "the pure definition" of His biological offspring (the Father, we believe, does not have a body to have any biology to reproduce). So, no, I would not say that Christ is God's Son even "in relationship" if by "in relationship" you mean the relationship a child has to his biological father whose DNA helped create him. Perhaps we can say that Christ is God's Son in relationship to their roles in the Trinity. They are one in Being, three in Person; there are distinct roles played by all three Persons. Perhaps the sonship of Christ is in relation to His role within the Trinity. This is really the best way I can think to describe it at this point. Once again, we believe it is a mystery and we will all learn of it after earthly death. I personally don't feel we are meant to understand all the ways of God: to me that wouldn't be much of a god, one who can be completely understand with human reasoning.

1.) Just me personally, but if it had been me, and I didn't want to make this thread about Mary, I would've simply said "I appreciate your explanation about the Catholic doctrine of Mary, but I disagree with it," and that would've been it. Going on to further say that this doctrine a a tradition of a corrupt church, seems harsh in light of us trying to share and understand each others' beliefs. Personally, I feel like Joseph Smith was corrupt, but don't feel the need to voice it (until now, I guess), because it's not relevant to our discussion. If we were discussing JS, then I'd probably mention it, but this thread is to share and understand beliefs concerning Christ. I mentioned Mary in relation to Christ, because to the Catholic Church she is relevant to the Incarnation. And just as an FYI: the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not a created doctrine, as many people believe. There was not a papal declaration on it until the 19th century, but the thing with ex cathedra statements is that they are made, not to create new dogma as is thought among non-Catholics, but to *restate* already commonly held beliefs; either in response to a new heresy, or to help the faithful. (Although, I would not think the LDS would have a problem with the idea of the pop being infallible [not to the LDS, but the idea in general], because they believe that the LDS prophets can speak as the mouthpiece of God... it's a very similar idea.) The concept of the Immaculate Conception has been believed by many since at least the time of the Church Fathers, if not sooner, and has a basis in Scripture, as does all Catholic doctrine. 2.) It's important to note that words have multiple meanings. And thus, non-LDS have zero confusion in believing Jesus is God's son and not His offspring. I've heard many men of older age call men of younger age "son" as a term of endearment, as opposed to a reference to his biological offspring. The same could be said of "brother" and "sister" (are not *all* LDS women referred to as "sister?"); friends can frequently call themselves brothers and sisters, when in actuallity they aren't. Jesus is God's Son, but not His biological offspring in the human sense. 3.) I must admit that the word "begotten" can be confusing. We do not mean that Jesus is begotten in the same way that all of the generations were in the Pentateuch --"so and so begat so and so, and so and so begat so and so." We believe that he is "eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten- not made, consubstantial witht the Father." Once again, begotten in the Pentateuch sense would imply that God created Jesus, and that He, therefore, is not co-eternal with God ... and to us non-LDS that would make God God and Jesus... something not God. For us, Christ IS God, and, therefore, cannnot have ever NOT been. The way in which the Trinity exists is a mystery that will more than likely come to light to us in the afterlife. The Catholic Church teaches that the Trinity is one God in three Persons; none of the Persons came into being, they always existed together. Perhaps the term "Son" for the second Person of the Trinity is merely a title we use, because we call the first Person of the Trinity "Father." Perhaps Christ and God uses the terms of parent and child in order to help us lowly humans understand Him a little bit more. I'm not exactly sure. Once again, I'm not a professional theologian (and to be honest, I've only been in the Catholic Church for less than a year), so I don't know all of the ways a professional who has studied this concept all his life would explain it. It is something that we simply believe; we take it on faith, on the teachings of (what we believe to be) Christ's one, true, infallible Church, on the readings of Scripture, and on the affirmations of the Holy Spirit dwelling within us. In the end, if you look at Christ as God's Son remembering that "son" does not always, 100% of the time *have* to mean offspring (and that we believe we will not be able to fully understand the entirety of God in this life anyway), then the idea isn't hard to accept. For me it is the other way around; I personally find it hard to believe that God has a physical body in the first place, and that Christ is His literal, DNA-having offspring. A lot of the time, I guess it depends on what you're used to and experiences you have in your life that make some things easy to accept over others.

I would say that Trinitarians do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God in the way that the LDS church does. Specifically because we believe that all three Persons of the Trinity -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- have co-existed for all time. This belief is not compatible with the LDS view that Jesus is literally the Father's first-born spirit child -- in order to believe this idea, one would have to believe that there was a time in which the Father existed and the Son did not yet. So the two ideas aren't in sync. The creed that we recite in Mass every (day) week specifically says that Christ is "begotten, not made," which further backs up our belief that Christ and the Father (and the Holy Spirit) are co-eternal -- Jesus was begotten, not created, because creation implies that there was a time He did not exist. We believe He was conceived "by the power of the Holy Spirit," not through any physical means. This is a mystery as to how specifically this came about... in my own mind I just picture Mary being pregnant, full stop. Nothing special about it. God simply wanted the Virgin to be pregnant, and so she was. (If you want to get really technical about it, the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was also conceived with out sin-- the Immaculate Conception-- [and that she lived an entirely sinless life] and that she is "ever Virgin" -- she remained a virgin her entire life. But only the Catholic and Orthodox hold to this belief.) As to this topic: what is the official LDS position on the Incarnation? How does the church believe Mary conceived?

As far as Paul being an Apostle. We believe that he is an apostle, lower-case "a," which is someone who has been sent forth, someone who has been given a mission. He refers to himself as an apostle, because he was sent forth by Christ in the book of Acts. But he is not one of the Twelve. And in regards to Apostle Authority being handed down the line: it is important to note the "thirteenth" Apostle, Matthias. He was chosen to join the Twelve to replace Judas, *by the other Apostles,* not by Christ when He was on Earth. The Twelve made the choice under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but they chose him, he was not picked out by Christ. This shows us that Christ gave the Apostles an Authority that they could hand down to others. Now, we no longer use the title of "Apostle" with any of our clergy, but we believe that they are all imbued with Authority through the Apostolic Succession: the Apostles passed down their Authority, the next generation passed down their Authority, and so on. It did not alter or diminish, and can be traced back to the Apostles, and then ultimately to Christ.

Although it is important to point out that the Catholic Church, and some Protestant churches, do not hold to that interpretation of the end times.

The Catholic Church does not believe in either the doctrine of sola scripture, or the doctrine of sola fide.

If you'll notice in the quotation I used, it also talks about all of us being members of the "body of Christ" through our baptism. (Not just the marriage reference.) (Although, marriage itself is compared to the relationship of Christ with His Church in the NT... and Revelation is chock full of references of us going to the wedding feast of the Lamb.) To understand that, you'd have to understand the Catholic view of sacraments... which is a whole conversation in and of itself, since most Protestants don't even do sacraments. In a sacrament, there is both a spiritual and physical aspect. And God imbues us with His grace. (That is why we are encouraged to go to Confession and receive the Eucharist as often as we can; because in receiving and partaking in one of the sacraments, we receive grace.) So in the analogy of marriage, the *sacrament* makes the couple one, *not* the sex. In baptism, it is the sacramental grace that makes the baby or adult a member of Christ's body, not simply the water. Maybe I don't understand your question... when I read that Bible verse, I don't see anything contrary to the Trinity. We believe that, just as the quotation stated, through the sacrament of our baptism we become part of the body of Christ. Not in that we agree with Christ's teachings, but that we become unified with the Being of Christ. Once again, it is referred to by St. Paul as a mystery, that we can't quite fully understand or explain, but that surely is. Again-- in the Catholic way of thinking.

The Catholic Church does not use the title "Apostle" anymore, not in the way the LDS church does. We believe that there were 12 Apostles, yes (13 technically, since Judas had to be replaced), and we call the time of their teaching the Apostolic Church, or the Apostolic Age of the Church. And while there is a hierarchy within the Church, it is not exactly in the way you describe; in the way the LDS church is, or necessarily in the way a company is. We believe that when Christ gave the Spirit to the Apostles, gave them the Great Commission, and gave them Authority that those Apostles then gave that Authority to others. Not to be Apostles -- we still say there were only 12 Apostles -- but to be priests, deacons, bishops, etc. We don't believe that someone lower down is trying to ordain someone higher up; rather, it is simply more chronological: the Apostles were given the Authority first, then they passed it along down the line. It is the same Authority each passing; it isn't diminished, and it isn't altered. We believe Christ installed Peter as the first pope, and there has been an unbroken line of popes throughout the ages. I'm sorry... to be honest, I don't even know if I read your question right. (It's been a long day.) But to the Catholic Church, there will only ever be 12 Apostles; that office is finished. But to us, that doesn't mean that Christ's Church was destroyed or vanished from the Earth. The Apostles gave the power of that Christ game them to others; we simply call them bishops, priests, cardinals, etc. instead of Apostles. Honestly, that might not have made any sense whatsoever. If I remember, I might try to take a stab at this again later. I just know that the LDS church has an office called "Apostle" and the Catholic Church (and the Protestant churches, as far as I know) don't. But one question I have frequently asked, and gotten different answers for, is this: Firstly, *when* exactly did Christ's Church leave the Earth (when did the Great Apostasy happen)? Because I've heard some people say when the last Apostle died, and I've heard some people say sometime in the 300s... very different answers. And secondly, if the Church fell away *when the last Apostle died,* why does the LDS church use the same Bible that the Catholic Church bound together? A Bible that was bound together during Catholic ecumenical councils *after* Christ's Church and His Truth left the Earth?

I found an explanation of this very idea on the web recently. As it explains it in a much better way than I could, I'll copy it here for you. "Take the example of an engaged couple. They're the kind who get along perfectly, can complete each other's sentences, etc. - you know the type. They're "one in purpose." Then they get married. Genesis 2:24 says that in the marital union, the two become one flesh. Now they're something more than one in purpose, through the power of the sacraments. That's the distinction that you need to understand for John 17 to make sense. Romans 12:5, 1 Corinthians 12:27 and the rest describe the Church as "the Body of Christ." It's being much less metaphorical than it seems. Through Baptism we enter into union with Christ. Not a mere union of purpose, where we root for His team, but a genuine indelible unity that can never be undone. In Ephesians 5:25-32, Paul speaks of the Church as the Bride of Christ, and compares Her quite dramatically to the union of a married couple, calling it a "Profound Mystery." This Profound Mystery is something far beyond a simple unity in purpose. In Galatians 2:20, Paul declares: I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. So my first point is that the relationship between the Church and Christ isn't a mere unity of purpose. To no one was this more clear than to St. Paul. And he should know: Acts 9:1-5 says that when he set out to persecute the Christians of Damascus, he was stopped on the way by a voice asking: "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?" When he asked, "Who are you, Lord?" Jesus responded: "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting" - that is, Jesus identified Himself so completely with His Church that although already Ascended into Heaven, He still considered any persecution of the Church as a direct persecution of Himself. Now, if the unity between Christ and the Church isn't a mere unity of purpose, then the unity within the Church isn't, either. We're organically connected in a way we don't fully understand, like spokes around the hub of Christ. That's why the Body of Christ image is so potent: we're connected and organized within a single organic Being... and that Being is Christ Himself. The early Christians understood this, and called themselves members of "The Way," a Divine title (John 14:6). And given this, the unity being spoken of in John 17 isn't a mere unity of purpose, either amongst members of the Church or between Members of the Trinity. Rather, it's a bond St. Paul describes as a Profound Mystery (which "unity of purpose" certainly isn't)." As always, agree with this statement or not. It's simply the way the Catholics interpret it.

The Protestant churches would mostly agree with you on Authority: their only Authority is the Bible. The Catholic Church, however, does not believe that the Apostles' Authority died with them. Instead we believe that it was passed down through the Apostolic Succession. For example: Christ specifically says that He is the Son of God and has the Authority to forgive sins. Then He gives that Authority to the Apostles (What sins you forgive shall be forgiven them...). The the Apostles go around preaching, baptizing, and forgiving sins. While they're at it, they ordain priests and bishops with that same Authority. When all of the Apostles die, the priests and bishops are still living, preaching, baptizing, and forgiving sins. While they're at it they ordain more priests and bishops with the same Authority. On and on and on until today. (Through the laying on of hands and the Holy Spirit.) Today, priests, bishops, cardinals, popes are ordained through the same power and Authority; when a bishops lays his hands on a man being ordained to the priesthood, we believe it is the same as Christ laying His hands on him, because the bishop can be traced back through the bishop before him, the bishop before him, the bishop before him, all the way back to the Apostles, and finally to Christ. This is Apostolic Succession. Of course, you can believe this or not. But this is the Catholic view of things. Not to say that all bishops, priests, and popes have been perfect. All men (except Christ and, if you're Catholic, Mary) are subject to sin. However, we believe that, through the power of the Holy Spirit (and the gates of Hell not prevailing...) that the Church is infallible in regards to doctrine. A pope can say that World War II never happened, and obviously be completely wrong. But if he makes a statement ex cathedra, then he cannot make an error, because the Holy Spirit guards and protects the doctrine of the Church from error. Of course, you can believe this or not. But this is the Catholic view of things.

Like I said earlier: when I try to say that 3=1 (Trinity), then I am told it is impossible... when I try to say that 3=3 (non-LDS view of the LDS Godhead), I am told I am also incorrect. What I say to 3 cannot equal 1: With God all things are possible. And also- we're not saying that 3 gods equal 1 god. We're saying that 1 God has 3 Persons. Different concept, even if you choose not to believe it. We completely disagree on the Trinity concept. That's fine. I'm just trying to explain, in the best way I know how, what the concept is; how the non-LDS churches interpret Scripture that differ from how the LDS church interprets it.

I feel like this is a point we can agree to disagree on. Once again, it is a matter of interpretation; you feel the non-LDS are interpreting it incorrectly, and the non-LDS feel the LDS are interpreting it incorrectly. Like I said, I guess it could be interpreted to mean "one in purpose," but we do not see it that way. At this point, I feel like it's not getting anyone anywhere to continue in the circle of the definition of "one." You now know how we interpret it and how that affects out view of the Trinity, and I now know how you interpret it and how that affects your view of the Godhead. I feel like that's as far as we can get on the subject.

Catholics take that verse to mean that the gates of Hell won't *ever* prevail against the Church. The Church can never fall away, or be stricken from the Earth for any period of time. This is where the LDS church and the Protestant churches converge, at least partially. Both interpret this verse to mean that the gates of Hell won't prevail against the Church in the end; that they prevailed against it for a period of time, and then the Church was brought back. Once again, to Catholics, this is a stretch of the words. We take them at face value: The gates of Hell won't prevail against the church. Period. We believe that the Holy Spirit prevented, and prevents, that from happening. Let's face it: if we only went by the literal words that Christ said in commanding His people, we wouldn't have much to go on. The LDS church interprets Christ's words, the Catholic Church interprets Christ's words, and the Protestant churches interpret Christ's words. I think we should cease from using this argument as a trump card. The real question is: who has the Authority to interpret those words? We all disagree on that too. The reason why the Catholic Church believes that God's Church will never leave the Earth for any period of time is because we believe the Holy Spirit was sent down to the Earth at Pentecost to the Apostles, and the Apostles passed on the Faith through the ages. Now, I know humans have free will. But, to me at least, there is a problem with this argument: how can we exercise our free will and choose Christ, if His Church is not on the Earth? Yes, individual people might abandon God, but God doesn't abandon His children. I do not believe He would allow His Church to be completely wiped off the face of the planet and give no one the opportunity to choose Him with their free will. Christ established the Church, then sent the Spirit to enlighten and embolden the members and ensure its continuity throughout the ages. As to the Fall: again, a free will thing. But there had to be something to choose between: obeying God or obeying the serpent. If Christ's Church has left the Earth, then we can't exercise our free will to choose God; we have only one option (choosing something contrary to God)... and that's not choice at all.