Only mentioned once.

[pam]

But I have to agree with Justice. It did appear as if you were saying we deny Christ.

[Misshalfway]

I don't get that this is what Jim is saying. I think that he is just saying that in order for one to leave the Catholic faith and become mormon that he would have to deny the "true" (meaning the catholic understanding) of the nature of God.

Am I close Jim?

[Jim108]

What exactly are you saying here Jim? Are you saying we, as LDS, don't believe in Christ?

No, Jesus to me and the traditional christians is God, the one and only, as I understand it, to the LDS Jesus in not God the Father. They are seperate beings or gods or whatever. I understand the LDS love Jesus the Christ, but they do not believe he is the one and only God. Is this true?

[Jim108]

I don't get that this is what Jim is saying. I think that he is just saying that in order for one to leave the Catholic faith and become mormon that he would have to deny the "true" (meaning the catholic understanding) of the nature of God.

Am I close Jim?

Yes, that is what I believe, thank you.

[prisonchaplain]

Not doing so adds confusion, like the early Catholic Church you mentioned. It led to a fallen organization, no logner inspired. Now, for the reformationists to break away was a good thing. But, when the tree is dead the branch that break off will be too. The only way was to plant a new tree.

It's amazing how a thread about Baptism of the Dead can lead to the doctrine of the Great Apostasy and the Restoration. That is one of the crucial discussion points for us, though. Was the Catholic church of the late Middle Ages embattled and struggling for spiritual life, or was it dead? Martin Luther was a reluctant schismatic, but your suggestion is that one of us Protestants went far enough.

To state what most know, we believe that the core of Catholic teaching concerning the nature of God remained valid, that apart from the later addition of the Apocrapha, the canon Catholicism gifted us with was of God, and that while we differ on some substantial matters, we are part of a God-blessed tree of life. We just happen to think that our branches are healthier than the trunk.

[rameumptom]

No, Jesus to me and the traditional christians is God, the one and only, as I understand it, to the LDS Jesus in not God the Father. They are seperate beings or gods or whatever. I understand the LDS love Jesus the Christ, but they do not believe he is the one and only God. Is this true?

We believe they are one Godhead. This is what some Biblical scholars call the "social" Trinity, which is also supported in the Bible.

[Justice]

Was the Catholic church of the late Middle Ages embattled and struggling for spiritual life, or was it dead?

To state what most know, we believe that the core of Catholic teaching concerning the nature of God remained valid, that apart from the later addition of the Apocrapha, the canon Catholicism gifted us with was of God, and that while we differ on some substantial matters, we are part of a God-blessed tree of life. We just happen to think that our branches are healthier than the trunk.

I wasn't very clear, but my statement has nothing to do with teachings or doctrine. It has everything to do with Priesthood authortiy. They didn't have any, so their church was dead. When a Church has no authorized and living oracles of God, it is dead. This is why you cannot get a living branch from a dead one. God has to re-institute that authority. Man cannot because it is not man's to grant.

[john doe]

It is my understanding that Jesus to the LDS is not God as in the father. The traditional Christian view is that Jesus (Son), Father and Spirit are one. So as I unerstand, Jesus is not the one and only God in the LDS religion. If this is not true than please correct me.

I think I would ask a Catholic for a clarification on that. If Catholics believe that God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ are the same being, it is news to me. Any Catholics want to chime in here?

[Justice]

John Doe, that is the Trinity. It is that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the same being, of one substance, with different manifestations... like water can be liquid, but also steam and ice. Same substance; same being, with 3 manifestations.

The one thing I've never understood about this belief is, since they believe the Father is a spirit only, how is His manifestation different than the Holy Ghost's manifestation, which is also just a spirit? Anyone?

[rameumptom]

John Doe, that is the Trinity. It is that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the same being, of one substance, with different manifestations... like water can be liquid, but also steam and ice. Same substance; same being, with 3 manifestations.

The one thing I've never understood about this belief is, since they believe the Father is a spirit only, how is His manifestation different than the Holy Ghost's manifestation, which is also just a spirit? Anyone?

This is a wrong description of the Trinity. You have described modalism, which is different. St Augustine condemned modalism as heresy. But don't feel bad. Most lay Trinitarians also tend to describe the Trinity in modalistic terms, because most do not know the difference.

The Trinity would be better described as one individual driving 3 carriages at one time. Or, in your description, water being in liquid, gas and solid forms at the same time. Three persons, one Being.

Now, this is hard to understand. But that is what becomes the mystery of the Trinity. Its very description states that the Trinity is "incomprehensible." That being the case, no one can truly understand how they can be both one and different at once, but not be modalistic at the same time.

[Dr T]

Thanks Ram, you are correct, that is known as Modalism.

Trinity is like this:

Google Image Result for http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-godhood.gif

[prisonchaplain]

I wasn't very clear, but my statement has nothing to do with teachings or doctrine. It has everything to do with Priesthood authortiy. They didn't have any, so their church was dead. When a Church has no authorized and living oracles of God, it is dead. This is why you cannot get a living branch from a dead one. God has to re-institute that authority. Man cannot because it is not man's to grant.

I'll confess to some ignorance here. The Great Apostasy, I assumed, was evidenced by such travesties as the Crusades (warfare for land, in the name of God), the selling of indulgences (selling forgiveness would be the ultimate priestcraft, no?), and through fallacious doctrine. Perhaps you could explain just when and how it was that the Church lost its priesthood authority. And, I guess I'm asking just who's fault it was?

[rameumptom]

I'll confess to some ignorance here. The Great Apostasy, I assumed, was evidenced by such travesties as the Crusades (warfare for land, in the name of God), the selling of indulgences (selling forgiveness would be the ultimate priestcraft, no?), and through fallacious doctrine. Perhaps you could explain just when and how it was that the Church lost its priesthood authority. And, I guess I'm asking just who's fault it was?

It was my fault. I had the bottle of priesthood authority by my washer and it dropped in. By the time I realized what had happened, it had shrunk in the wash.

Seriously, the Great Apostasy is demonstrated by events such as the Inquisition, indulgences, etc. The loss of authority did not occur overnight, but over a period of time.

We believe that with the death of the apostles, the apostolic authority ended. There were others who held lesser offices in the priesthood, such as bishops and elders. But over time, much of that authority also was lost, as the Church changed many of the ordinances, including how priesthood was passed on.

Other examples of the Great Apostasy have to do with continuing revelation. When the early Christian Church canonized what is now known as the Bible, and declared revelation to be complete, it basically closed the windows of heaven. Interestingly, many Christian churches have reversed that somewhat over the years. For example, the Pentecostal churches now believe in personal revelation and guidance. So many other Christian faiths are actually coming back from the Great Apostasy, as well.

We do believe that the Reformation was a big step God took to bring about the Restoration of the gospel. But even the Catholic church has made remarkable changes in the last 200 years towards rejecting some of its beliefs, which I believe is due to truth being brought back upon the earth in these last days.

[prisonchaplain]

Ram, I almost get the impression that the Great Apostasy was simply part of God's plan, then. If it happened with the dying off of the Apostles, why was that line broken? Did the church fail to carry it on? Also, I'm ignorant of Catholic doctrine on canon, but was the canon declared closed officially, or did it simply cease to expand? The Pope can speak ex cathedra, which would be akin to continuing revelation.

BTW, both your humor and your public willingness to take personal responsiblity for 1800 years of spiritual darkness are most admirable, RAM. Now if you could just put up a youtube with that confession--something along the lines of Swaggert's late 1980s tearful remorse, then perhaps Catholicism and Protestantism could see fit to extend to you some forgiveness. :-)

[Maureen]

No, Jesus to me and the traditional christians is God, the one and only, as I understand it, to the LDS Jesus in not God the Father. They are seperate beings or gods or whatever. I understand the LDS love Jesus the Christ, but they do not believe he is the one and only God. Is this true?

Jim, you do realize that mainstream Christianity does not equate Jesus as God the Father either. Jesus is God the Son. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God individually and collectively. They are 3 distinct persons but one God.

Thanks Ram for your correct description of the trinity. :)

M.

[Justice]

I'll confess to some ignorance here. The Great Apostasy, I assumed, was evidenced by such travesties as the Crusades (warfare for land, in the name of God), the selling of indulgences (selling forgiveness would be the ultimate priestcraft, no?), and through fallacious doctrine. Perhaps you could explain just when and how it was that the Church lost its priesthood authority. And, I guess I'm asking just who's fault it was?

I would have to do a little research to be sure, but in the Christian history course I took in college, according to a few early writers (I can't remember which ones, Eusubias may have been one) the last known and recognized Priesthood authortiy, as far as the Church was concenred, was on the earth about 400 AD. I remember because it corresponded with the approximate death of Moroni, the last Priesthood holder in the Americas.

He was a Bishop and he was a martyr like many other saints.

[Justice]

This is a wrong description of the Trinity.

It's all so confusing to me anyway.

The last girl I dated before I met my wife was a devout Catholic girl. She had me speak to her Priest many times to help answer some of the questions I had. The example I used was the one he gave me. I am unfamiliar with modalism, but I know other Catholics I have spoken to used the same example.

Just about the time you think you can relate and understand a bit, you learn what you think is wrong. Sigh.

[rameumptom]

And it is a sad thing when Catholic priests and pastors use modalistic symbolism to explain the Trinity. They twist things around and instill a heresy in the minds of their own believers when they do that. For me, it is best if they'd just read the creed and then explain that it is incomprehensible, and leave it at that. Because there just is no good way to really describe it (unless you want to use the one person in three vehicles analogy).

That said, I'm thankful the restored gospel teaches us the true nature of God and our relationship with him. We know we are of the same substance as God is made of, that we literally are His children, and not just in some symbolic way. We know that God is the "most moved mover" with body, parts and passions; and that he truly does love us, just as we are able to love our own children. Those are concepts I can wrap my heart and mind around, and they feel right to me. If I am to follow Christ to God, then there must be some way to comprehend God. But if even the Son is incomprehensible, then how do I really follow him to God? We either have the mystery of the Trinity, or we have the Restored teaching of the Godhead.

[rameumptom]

Ram, I almost get the impression that the Great Apostasy was simply part of God's plan, then. If it happened with the dying off of the Apostles, why was that line broken? Did the church fail to carry it on? Also, I'm ignorant of Catholic doctrine on canon, but was the canon declared closed officially, or did it simply cease to expand? The Pope can speak ex cathedra, which would be akin to continuing revelation.

BTW, both your humor and your public willingness to take personal responsiblity for 1800 years of spiritual darkness are most admirable, RAM. Now if you could just put up a youtube with that confession--something along the lines of Swaggert's late 1980s tearful remorse, then perhaps Catholicism and Protestantism could see fit to extend to you some forgiveness. :-)

Not sure if I want to be in the same boat as Jimmy Swaggart. I'm just not the televangelist type.

God may not have planned the future, but he foresees it. He knows that we are a stubborn people, who often choose not to follow Him, and occasionally choose to completely rebel against him. I do not see the Great Apostasy as a complete loss of truth, etc. I see it as a period when the world was not interested in more of God's truth and light. Occasionally, a person or group would appear in history who was ready for greater truth, and God granted it to that person or group. I believe the Swedenborgians could be classed as such, as well as the Reformers. However, most humans are happy to have just a little truth - enough to give them hope, but not enough to make them rise above their comfort zone. We see this not only in spiritual matters, but in all areas. 1/3 of all high school kids drop out every year (75% in Detroit). That also is a sign of apostasy from truth and light from God.

Individuals fall from God's grace continually as they sin and do not continually seek to grow in Christ's grace and knowledge. We cannot be saved in ignorance. And the more light and truth we open ourselves up to, the more God steps into our lives. To the extent that we are ignorant of spiritual truths, we are distanced from God. I think you would agree that while Buddhism and Islam have some good and inspired truths in them, they still fall short of the truths found in Christianity. And I'm sure you would agree that some Christian faiths are more correct in truth than are others. I also see it this way.

The Restored Gospel of Christ, given through Joseph Smith and modern prophets, does not bring 100% of truth back to earth. There's no way any of us could know all truth in this life. However, it brings back sufficient spiritual truth to exalt mankind to the highest of God's mansions/kingdoms.

I believe there is much good and truth in all religions. And they will be blessed for the truth they espouse. Your job as a chaplain assists many to turn to Christ and repent of their sins. That is a marvelous and holy duty you have. And it can bring people from hell to a kingdom of God's glory in heaven.

The restored gospel is offered to those who wish to find even higher truths and blessings from God.

[Justice]

...it is best if they'd just read the creed and then explain that it is incomprehensible, and leave it at that.

There are problems with teaching it's incomprehensible and leaving it at that. He did try that path until I reminded him of a couple things.

1. You are suggesting we not study the nature and character of God because we won't understand it anyway.

2. It seems to directly conflict with what Jesus said during His great intercessory prayer to the Father:

John 17:

3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

After bringing up these points is when our discussion took a more meaningful and deeper turn. In fact, I actually do understand how they can relate "of one substance yet 3 manifestations" by thinking of water, steam, and ice. I don't think the entire body of substance would need to be the same manifestation at the same time. Part of it could be water in heaven, part ice on earth, and part steam to send His spirit. So, maybe my view of the water, ice, steam theory is not as much modal as others think of it.

I really do try hard to understand the views of others, even if they don't make sense to me, or even if I disagree with them. It helps me to find a frame of reference, or common ground, to build on during discussions.

[prisonchaplain]

Justice, imho there can't help but be some mystery to God. He is our Creator. He is beyond us. You are right though, that we should not then become complacent and lazy, and fail to pursue our knowledge of Him. My guess is that when questions are responded to with, "Well, it's a mystery," the reference is more to the particular question, than to a general understanding of our God. We can know Him deeply and intimately. Yet, only "when that which is perfect is come," will we see Him as He is.

[rameumptom]

There are problems with teaching it's incomprehensible and leaving it at that. He did try that path until I reminded him of a couple things.

1. You are suggesting we not study the nature and character of God because we won't understand it anyway.

2. It seems to directly conflict with what Jesus said during His great intercessory prayer to the Father:

John 17:

3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

After bringing up these points is when our discussion took a more meaningful and deeper turn. In fact, I actually do understand how they can relate "of one substance yet 3 manifestations" by thinking of water, steam, and ice. I don't think the entire body of substance would need to be the same manifestation at the same time. Part of it could be water in heaven, part ice on earth, and part steam to send His spirit. So, maybe my view of the water, ice, steam theory is not as much modal as others think of it.

I really do try hard to understand the views of others, even if they don't make sense to me, or even if I disagree with them. It helps me to find a frame of reference, or common ground, to build on during discussions.

I agree that knowing Christ and God is eternal life. That is why I am a member of the Restored Gospel of Christ in the LDS Church.

It doesn't matter how you, as a Mormon, wish to chop up the modalistic example of water. It is still modalism. The Trinity is everywhere, so stating a part is on earth and part in heaven, is also a form of modalism. Why? Because the Father, Son and Spirit are everywhere at the same time. The persons are not modalistic manifestations of the same person. They are one being/substance in three persons, and three persons in one being/substance.

To build on a common ground requires that the Trinitarian first understand his own doctrine correctly. Otherwise, he/she is not a Trinitarian. That is why I point this out continually to both LDS and traditional Christians. If you are going to be a believer in the Godhead, be a good and knowledgeable believer (after all knowing Christ and God is life eternal). If you are going to be a modalist or Trinitarian, be good and knowledgeable in that specific creed. I am Mormon. I shouldn't know the Trinitarian creed better than those who profess to be Trinitarian (especially better than a Catholic priest).

It isn't fair for some of them to declare us non-Christian, because we do not follow the Trinitarian creeds, when they also do not believe nor teach them correctly. If Mormons are heretics, then so should every modalist also be declared a heretic and non-Christian. But if pastors and Catholic priests are explaining the Trinity couched in modalist terminology, then they are modalists and should receive the same treatment Mormons often do, as personae non grata.

If Prison Chaplain or another chooses to be a modalist, but views all who proclaim Christ as Christians, I have no problem with them being modalist. But for those who condemn Mormonism for its rejection of the Trinity creed, they should hold stiffly to it, or be held to the same standard as we.

[prisonchaplain]

It isn't fair for some of them to declare us non-Christian, because we do not follow the Trinitarian creeds, when they also do not believe nor teach them correctly. If Mormons are heretics, then so should every modalist also be declared a heretic and non-Christian. But if pastors and Catholic priests are explaining the Trinity couched in modalist terminology, then they are modalists and should receive the same treatment Mormons often do, as personae non grata.

There is a huge Grand Canyon sized chasm between preaching modalism, such as the United Pentecostal Church does, and trying to explain the Trinity using analogies that could be misconstrued as modalistic. I've heard the water one used--but correctly, in that the Trinity was only said to be modeled when water/ice/gas appeared simultaneously (I guess there is a temperature at which they do). All analogies tend to falter somewhere, and can be accused of modalism or tritheism, if carried too far.

It may be unfair to condemn any self-identified Christian as not being one. On the other hand, the wedge question would be a non-Christian asking, "So...just what do you Christians believe?"

[dnc76v22]

My Brother is talking with a friend and has hit a snag.

His friend has brought up the subject of Baptism for the dead and the fact that its only mentioned once. Are there other things that are only mentioned once in the New Testament which are common practice in most Christian churches. What we want to show is that the Baptism for the dead is not unique in only being mentioned once.

He is also talking about other Temple Ordinances not having any scriptural basis in the New Testament.

As you can see, he seems to base his whole faith on the New Testament only and will not accept quotes from the BoM or even the Old Testament.

My Brother feels that this guy could be a real possability for joining the church, as long as we can get past the indoctrination of his Catholic upbringing. He goes to a modern style church now however, Not exactly born again, But with some elements of that. This is where he gets the idea that the New Testament is all that matters and the Old Testament as simply being a history book, with no real spiritual value.

Thanks

Why should being mentioned only once be a stumbling block? If it were not true, why mention it at all?

As someone has pointed out, many traditional Christians accept doctrines that are not mentioned at all.

[Carl62]

Fresh idea there...give it a run, and let us know how folk react.

PC, it's already been done. www.BOMChristian.com