Please can I ask your advice on finding a church to attend with my girlfriend.


AbramM
 Share

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, AbramM said:

You're just so much more articulate than me and I bet you have more swagger in real life than that photo of yours.

 

Nah; his fashion sense pretty well kills the swagger. 

17 hours ago, AbramM said:

However, if you make it to heaven and find out the trinity is true then I doubt you will care that you were wrong about the trinity. 

You haven't been here long; there are people here I'm sure will argue with God if anything turns out to not be exactly as they're sure it is. 

Personally, I'd say we have our orders, and arguing about whether they're written on fair trade organic hemp paper or not is only a distraction from devoting ourselves fully to following them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Right... But you are not even willing to try and learn and pray about the LDS beliefs either...

You are putting all the blame on her for being unwilling to change for you...  But you are just as unwilling to change... The blame is just as much on you.

You are entitled want what you want in a marriage partner, you are the one putting limits and restrictions and requirements.  (She is also totally entitled to her own but we have only guesses at what they might be)  And you are the one showing an unwillingness to change, learn or pray. 

If @AbramM were seeking out an interfaith buddy I could understand this line of questioning. He's looking for his lifelong "one-flesh" wife. The girl let on that her faith was compatible with his. He's not trying to be fair and set up an interfaith marriage. He's looking for a traditional Christian soulmate, so he can become one with her in every way, and so they can raise up their kids, without religious confusion, in the nurture and admonition of the LORD. He finds out LDS is a whole lot different from his faith than he thought, so it may indeed be a deal breaker. That's not unfair. That's a young man seeking to live his life for God and without compromise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mores said:

 

But consider the family.  When we're truly one with our spouse or our children, there is no question about "splitting profits" or anything similar.  My digestive system doesn't make a deal with the heart to pump blood properly so that the digestion can occur.  The heart doesn't make a plea to the kidneys to clean the blood, etc.  They all do their job and work together because they are all completely integrated into the whole.  Perhaps that is why the "body of Christ" is such an apt metaphor.

This is what I think of when I consider oneness.  The Savior commanded us to be one.  And if we are not one, we are not His.  I believe this is the same oneness where He and the Father are One.

WHY DO WE INSIST? ... If God is so far removed from us that we cannot even relate to Him or He to us, what on earth would be the bond of love that we'd have? 

First, kudos for your lengthy, well-thought-out response. I've found that the family analogy is a common explanation of the LDS Godhead. Also, your question about how one can love and worship what one cannot understand is fair. Concerning God's oneness being a family arrangement, I suspect the LDS reaction to the creeds, and to the councils that formed them (an opposition shared by groups like Jehovah's Witnesses, btw) is that they spent a great deal of time infusing "the wisdom of man" into what is supposed to be a direct, God-breathed understanding of scripture. They were answering opposition questions with details the Bible simply does not give. I might suggest, however, that LDS ask the same questions--questions the Bible does not answer. So, traditional Christians end up reverting to those creedal answers.

Then again, the LDS answer to God's oneness is also a creedal one...but with a difference. Joseph Smith did not form a committee of theologians. He says God told him so. His answers are to be understood as prophetic--in the Old Testament "thus says the LORD" sense. And so, you have great confidence in it.

And, here we traditional Christians are...without those revelations...knowing for sure that God is one, though three persons, ... being asked to explain the nature of the oneness. The non-creedal, yet safe answer, is that the oneness is so much one that it cannot be called polytheistic and yet it allows for the Father, Son, and Spirit to be distinct persons. How that can be so...well, as one created by God, I am thankful for what He has revealed, and can love Him for that...without understanding yet the fullness of how that is so. I do have the promise of 1 Corinthians 13 that when we see Jesus we will see Him as He is...we will have that fullness of understanding.

So you insist...because you believe you have the answer and therefore, of course God would give it. And, we either appeal directly to the creeds, indirectly by using their words, or, as I did, just say, "Look, here's what the Bible tells us and I'm good with that." I'm not sure we can get beyond this impasse without agreeing that the Latter-day revelations or true or false. You know something I don't, and I know that you think you do, but I'm not so sure you're right. So...here we be. :-)

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
19 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

First, kudos for your lengthy, well-thought-out response. I've found that the family analogy is a common explanation of the LDS Godhead. Also, your question about how one can love and worship what one cannot understand is fair. Concerning God's oneness being a family arrangement, I suspect the LDS reaction to the creeds, and to the councils that formed them (an opposition shared by groups like Jehovah's Witnesses, btw) is that they spent a great deal of time infusing "the wisdom of man" into what is supposed to be a direct, God-breathed understanding of scripture. They were answering opposition questions with details the Bible simply does not give. I might suggest, however, that LDS ask the same questions--questions the Bible does not answer. So, traditional Christians end up reverting to those creedal answers.

Pretty good summary. And thank you for the compliment.

Quote

Then again, the LDS answer to God's oneness is also a creedal one...but with a difference. Joseph Smith did not form a committee of theologians. He says God told him so. His answers are to be understood as prophetic--in the Old Testament "thus says the LORD" sense. And so, you have great confidence in it.

True, but this goes in a different direction.  My lack of harmony about the Trinity is not that "creedal is bad".  As you point out, we have many things that are creedal as well (insomuch as your apparent definition is alluded to in this quote --which, BTW, I disagree with.  But we'll go with it for now).

In my mind, the FIRST principle of a religious system must be to know and understand the basic nature of God.  The remainder of religion is to learn the deeper nature of God.  All other things are then apparent or even obvious after we understand the nature of God.  It seems that the Trinity pretty much demands that even the BASIC nature of God is so far removed from us that we cannot have a hope of relating with God or communing with Him.

I have no problem believing that the deeper and more profound things are beyond our understanding.  But the first step is beyond our understanding?

Quote

So you insist...because you believe you have the answer and therefore, of course God would give it. And, we either appeal directly to the creeds, indirectly by using their words, or, as I did, just say, "Look, here's what the Bible tells us and I'm good with that." I'm not sure we can get beyond this impasse with agreeing that the Latter-day revelations or true or false. You know something I don't, and I know that you think you do, but I'm not so sure you're right. So...here we be. 🙂

Here is something that explains a lot.  I haven't read the thread in detail.  So now I get where you're coming from.  People have been asking about the Biblical basis of the Trinity.  I was not.  While it may matter in the end, the beginning is not about the Bible or Christianity or anything like that.

I'll reiterate my point.  A journey of 1000 miles begins with the first step.  And to me the first step on the road to discipleship is to have a basic understanding of who I'm following or what I'm worshiping.  And in the interests of finding common ground, and trying to understand others, I have searched and asked and discussed with whomever I could.  But I've never really felt I ever understood what the rest of Christianity worships.  Without that, I simply cannot follow that which I don't understand.

If you've been given this tremendous gift of faith somehow, then kudos to you.  But I haven't received that. 

By this statement, I hope you understand that it is very similar to someone who sincerely investigates our faith, has read the Book of Mormon, prayed about it and sincerely did not receive any answer after much effort.

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me personally, when it comes to understanding what the Scriptures say about the nature of God, I feel like the simplest explanation is generally the best.  Now, everybody will naturally say that the explanation they believe in is the simplest, and cite passages that, to them, appear to very simply and directly state what they believe.

So what I try to do is to look at the scripture, imagining I'm coming from a totally different belief system that is seeing the Bible for the very first time, with no preconceived notions of any kind, whatsoever on their meaning.  Maybe I'm from the Far East.  Maybe I'm from the Middle East. Maybe I'm from a lovely little island on Tau Ceti IV.  I might see a passage like "I and my Father are One." and perhaps interpret that to mean they're one in essence... But I'd also read passages like the ones I mentioned before...  when Jesus prayed to the Father in the garden, or when He was on the cross, or when He was baptized.  I think I'd then say to myself "Oh, ok, so these are separate people talking to and about each other.  Gotcha.  Then I'd regard passages like "I and my Father are one" as being poetic or metaphorical, since that's another easy way to look at it without contradicting the narrative at the 3 events mentioned above.

It's Occam's Razor, essentially.  Which is the simpler and therefore more likely interpretation to me, as someone who never saw this before? 

  • That Jesus, Heavenly Father and the Holy Spirit are shown to be separate Beings doing separate things at the same time, with other passages metaphorically talking about their oneness, or
  • They're all a single divine being manifesting in three different ways such that they're the same God and yet talk to one another separately, in a manner so difficult to conceptualize and understand that arguments and disagreements on the specifics have endured for 2,000 years; with no direct support for that idea in Scripture other than a very nonintuitive interpretation of a few isolated lines?

Again, I say this not to attack anyone's view.  Just sharing my thought process.  Anyway, I won't beat this dead horse any further.  :)

beating_a_dead_horse.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

If @AbramM were seeking out an interfaith buddy I could understand this line of questioning. He's looking for his lifelong "one-flesh" wife. The girl let on that her faith was compatible with his. He's not trying to be fair and set up an interfaith marriage. He's looking for a traditional Christian soulmate, so he can become one with her in every way, and so they can raise up their kids, without religious confusion, in the nurture and admonition of the LORD. He finds out LDS is a whole lot different from his faith than he thought, so it may indeed be a deal breaker. That's not unfair. That's a young man seeking to live his life for God and without compromise.

No one is objecting to Abram's desire to be a Protestant married to a Protestant.  That's totally ok, and even very admirable to be dedicated to.  No one is objecting to this fact that this may be a dealbreaker and they need to break up -- in fact many Protestants *and* LDS Christians have suggested that's probably the best/most likely course of action.  

The objection comes from "well if you convert and become the Protestant girl I want, then we can can get married."   That's intrinsically manipulative and disrespectful of her (even if such a thing is said with the best of intentions).  You should love the person you marry as they ARE.  Not as you want them to be. His statements about so admiring her relationship with God but then asking it to change further the objection.

*Disclaimer: we still have no first hand knowledge of what this girl's faith or level of devotion are.  And regardless of her faith/devotion, their communication on this subject needs a ton of work.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is a basic understanding of God vs. a deeper one? @Mores suggest that Trinity addresses that basic nature, and so should be understood. I'm not so sure. Trinity gets at the Godness of God--his deity. How can we understand that? We understand that God loves us so much, that He made us in his image, that He wishes to live with us forever, that we express his love when we love one another, that when we gravitate to the good we draw closer to God (and the opposite, of course). The Bible reveals so much. Modern translations are written at about a 7th grade reading level. In the KJV is 11th grade. So, what is basic to God's nature. I'd suggest it's his character--especially his love. How he can be truly 1, yet 3...why wouldn't we consider that a deeper understanding?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

The objection comes from "well if you convert and become the Protestant girl I want, then we can can get married."   That's intrinsically manipulative and disrespectful of her (even if such a thing is said with the best of intentions).  You should love the person you marry as they ARE.  Not as you want them to be. His statements about so admiring her relationship with God but then asking it to change further the objection.

I get the objection...if @AbramM were hanging outside the nearest LDS temple, trying to ensnare a good LDS girl, so he could convert her and make her his own. BUT, young and naïve, he honestly thought the gal was just of a different Protestant denomination. She let on that it was so. He never gave her an ultimatum. He's ready to break it off if she's committed LDS. We've said this and @AbramM has said this multiple times. He's not pressuring her to convert. He's trying to figure out where she is really at spiritually, and is ready to let her go, if she is committed to her LDS faith. It's a difficult situation that seems to have been foisted upon him. I see no manipulation, and do not understand the objection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, prisonchaplain said:

I get the objection...if @AbramM were hanging outside the nearest LDS temple, trying to ensnare a good LDS girl, so he could convert her and make her his own. BUT, young and naïve, he honestly thought the gal was just of a different Protestant denomination. She let on that it was so. He never gave her an ultimatum. He's ready to break it off if she's committed LDS. We've said this and @AbramM has said this multiple times. He's not pressuring her to convert. He's trying to figure out where she is really at spiritually, and is ready to let her go, if she is committed to her LDS faith. It's a difficult situation that seems to have been foisted upon him. I see no manipulation, and do not understand the objection.

We don't know if she lead him or or tried to tell him, or really anything about that interactions.  There's easily a dozen different possibilities.  Yes, they are both young.  

As to the manipulation, maybe flipping things around will help illustrate: Sarah is a LDS gal, who's dating Bobby who's a Methodist, but not really committed to it.  They met a the local dog show in southern Idaho, and Sarah just assumed he was LDS.   Now, Sarah really hopes that Bobby becomes LDS so that they can get married in the temple.  She's not outwardly pressuring anything, but does inform Bobby know she can't marry a Methodist, but if he converts, then they could be equally yoked and get married.   

Do you see the pressure being put on Bobby there, but just the nature of the situation?    It's not a good thing, and I would tell Sarah to 1) accept Bobby as a Methodist or whatever his faith may be, or 2) break up.  No option of waiting around to see if he converts.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

We don't know if she lead him or or tried to tell him, or really anything about that interactions.  There's easily a dozen different possibilities.  Yes, they are both young.  

As to the manipulation, maybe flipping things around will help illustrate: Sarah is a LDS gal, who's dating Bobby who's a Methodist, but not really committed to it.  They met a the local dog show in southern Idaho, and Sarah just assumed he was LDS.   Now, Sarah really hopes that Bobby becomes LDS so that they can get married in the temple.  She's not outwardly pressuring anything, but does inform Bobby know she can't marry a Methodist, but if he converts, then they could be equally yoked and get married.   

Do you see the pressure being put on Bobby there, but just the nature of the situation?    It's not a good thing, and I would tell Sarah to 1) accept Bobby as a Methodist or whatever his faith may be, or 2) break up.  No option of waiting around to see if he converts.  

First, I am assuming that @AbramM is representing the situation in good faith. The gal's not here to defend herself. We all get that. However, I have to assume he's shooting straight with us, or the conversation becomes impossible. That said, okay, yes I see that there is a measure of pressure being applied by our suitor. Still, I think he's handling it honorably. The waiting around will not last long. He's mainly waiting to see if she will disclose where she is really at. If she's already become deconverted from LDS spirituality, and simply vaguely believing in the one God, then I can understand @AbramM patiently testing the waters, to see if she is open to a traditional Christian faith practice. He's already said that if she is truly committed to her LDS faith, then he will gently let her go. To me, that's good enough. I get the counsel to simply move on. It's tempting for me to recommend that too, given her lack of openness. However, I don't know either of these two, so am willing to give the OP his own discernment in the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

...The objection comes from "well if you convert and become the Protestant girl I want, then we can can get married."   That's intrinsically manipulative and disrespectful of her (even if such a thing is said with the best of intentions).  You should love the person you marry as they ARE.  Not as you want them to be. His statements about so admiring her relationship with God but then asking it to change further the objection...  

No where in this thread has @AbramM said he wants to convert his girlfriend. That seems to be the story that so many posters here are creating. He didn't really even understand her faith until he came to this forum. All he's trying to do is understand what she believes and based on what she tells him (if she ever will tell him), he will know what he will do.

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
34 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

What is a basic understanding of God vs. a deeper one?

Basic understanding of God:

  • What form are we supposed to imagine when we look upon the face of God?
  • What did Moses see when he says that the finger of the Lord wrote upon the stone tablets?
  • When we go to heaven to be received into His kingdom, what do we imagine will be welcoming us?
34 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

@Mores suggest that Trinity addresses that basic nature, and so should be understood.

No, that's not what I said.  I agree with you that it speaks more to the deeper nature of God.  The weakness that it has is that it leaves NO room for an explanation of the basic nature of God.  In fact, history has shown that creedalists mock the very idea of having any sort of description of the basic nature of God.  Instead, I've been told time and time again (as you just did) that we simply cannot comprehend Him AT ALL.

Here's a way to common ground.

What if the Godhead is the correct answer to the question of the BASIC nature of God. And the Trinity is the correct answer to the DEEPER nature of God?

Sure, this sounds self-contradictory to both sides who have been battling for over a century.  But I'm looking at it from the viewpoint of a "scientific model".  The valence shell vs the s & p orbitals are completely incompatible with each other.  But neither one is meant to be a complete description.  They are simply two ways of looking at the situation that actually tends to explain a whole lot.  One model simply doesn't work for some things we know.  The other has weaknesses as well.  But when we recognize that the truth is something else entirely, we realize that each model has its merits on how to explain things that we DO know.  And where appropriate, we use one model over the other to explain things as we know them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

If @AbramM were seeking out an interfaith buddy I could understand this line of questioning. He's looking for his lifelong "one-flesh" wife. The girl let on that her faith was compatible with his. He's not trying to be fair and set up an interfaith marriage. He's looking for a traditional Christian soulmate, so he can become one with her in every way, and so they can raise up their kids, without religious confusion, in the nurture and admonition of the LORD. He finds out LDS is a whole lot different from his faith than he thought, so it may indeed be a deal breaker. That's not unfair. That's a young man seeking to live his life for God and without compromise.

I did state that he is free to make what ever requirements he wants...  However he is not free to shift the blame for those requirements on to someone else.  If he does not marry this girl and the reason is because she does not met his requirements... It is on him. 

Lets use a silly example... He wants to marry someone with the same color hair...   This is totally his right if that is what he wants...  He meets a girl, grows to like a girl, and then notices that her hair wasn't the color he thought it was.  (Maybe he wasn't a observant as he should have been, or maybe she was a fan of wigs or hair dye).  This girl has not fundamentally changed, she is still the same girl she has always been, but his awareness and understanding of her has grown.  He has every right to end it if that is what he wants, but that is on him because of his requirements and expectations...  not on her for simply being her.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

The objection comes from "well if you convert and become the Protestant girl I want, then we can can get married."   That's intrinsically manipulative and disrespectful of her (even if such a thing is said with the best of intentions).  You should love the person you marry as they ARE.  Not as you want them to be. His statements about so admiring her relationship with God but then asking it to change further the objection.

I'm not trying to manipulate her at all. If I had known that she wasn't a protestant then I would have never dated her and I definitely wouldnt have proposed to her. Why should I be required to accept something just because I was Naiive to it when I proposed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

did state that he is free to make what ever requirements he wants...  However he is not free to shift the blame for those requirements on to someone else.  If he does not marry this girl and the reason is because she does not met his requirements... It is on him. 

It's not just my requirement it is the requirement of the Lord. 

I'm not blaming her, yeah I was mad she misled me. It's not about blaming someone though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

First, I am assuming that @AbramM is representing the situation in good faith. The gal's not here to defend herself. We all get that. However, I have to assume he's shooting straight with us, or the conversation becomes impossible. That said, okay, yes I see that there is a measure of pressure being applied by our suitor. Still, I think he's handling it honorably. The waiting around will not last long. He's mainly waiting to see if she will disclose where she is really at. If she's already become deconverted from LDS spirituality, and simply vaguely believing in the one God, then I can understand @AbramM patiently testing the waters, to see if she is open to a traditional Christian faith practice. He's already said that if she is truly committed to her LDS faith, then he will gently let her go. To me, that's good enough. I get the counsel to simply move on. It's tempting for me to recommend that too, given her lack of openness. However, I don't know either of these two, so am willing to give the OP his own discernment in the matter.

The reason I wont just break up with her is because I love her and I want to be fair to her. I have been honest with her that we need to find a church we can both attend before we get married. As soon as she lets me know (if she does) that she doesn't want to find a church with me then I will break up with her. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AbramM said:

The reason I wont just break up with her is because I love her and I want to be fair to her. I have been honest with her that we need to find a church we can both attend before we get married. As soon as she lets me know (if she does) that she doesn't want to find a church with me then I will break up with her. 

This is understandable.

I have one suggestion though... since your expression of love is admirable.  Before you call it quits and without waiting for her to get back to you on that church-thing... it would be great, as a token of your love (which should include a desire for understanding), if you try to understand what she believes.  The best way I can think of is to... call the LDS missionaries and have an honest heart-to-heart chat with them.  Then you can say you have truly exhausted all avenues of reconciliation between your beliefs and gave that love all you got.

But then I'm just some rando on the internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mores said:

Here's a way to common ground.

What if the Godhead is the correct answer to the question of the BASIC nature of God. And the Trinity is the correct answer to the DEEPER nature of God?

I'll grant that your suggestion and explanation are interesting and intelligent. I suppose a historian might even argue that the polytheistic-seeming Godhead actually being a monotheistic Trinity follows the general flow of religious thinking. However, I would suggest that the basic nature of God is his character--LOVE. We grasp to understand the Trinity or Godhead because we desire to know the God we worship as intimately and accurately as possible. However, when the discussion turns to Greek and Hebrew words about unity, oneness, essence, etc., I suspect most people of faith will feel out of their depth, and resort to trusting the gifted teachers of their religious movement.

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

This is understandable.

I have one suggestion though... since your expression of love is admirable.  Before you call it quits and without waiting for her to get back to you on that church-thing... it would be great, as a token of your love (which should include a desire for understanding), if you try to understand what she believes.  The best way I can think of is to... call the LDS missionaries and have an honest heart-to-heart chat with them.  Then you can say you have truly exhausted all avenues of reconciliation between your beliefs and gave that love all you got.

But then I'm just some rando on the internet.

Yeah it's kind of a confusing time for me so I don't want to open myself up to other religions when I am vulnerable. 

From what I just recently learnt about LDS religion I think it's interesting but not for me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a different path, one that discusses the differences of the beliefs found in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints vs. that of those found in the Baptist religion, which in some ways DOES differ (most protestant religions differ in one area or another in belief, this is why there ARE different protestant religions rather than just one unified religion, though various churches [for example the Baptist have a stronger independent church tradition than say...the Presbyterians] can have very similar beliefs.

To support the Trinity, there are various scriptures one uses.  The most famous I would say would be as follows...

Quote

John 1 King James Version (KJV)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The same was in the beginning with God.

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.

17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Here it states that they are both separate and yet the same being in a protestant understanding.  As it says, the Word was both With and WAS at the same time, Deity.

And then, it says that the Word was made Flesh, and that no man hath seen the Father, but have seen the Son. 

There are other verses, but this is one that many Trinitarians can turn to for a particularly strong showing of scriptural backing of their belief.  It does NOT state that they were ONE in purpose, but that they are actually ONE and the SAME.  At the same time it also makes clear that they are DIFFERENT.

At least from a basic reading of the KJV.

On the otherhand, LDS take a notion of the aspect of oneness as found by a prayer known by almost every Catholic Child who has gone to the traditional school...

However, the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe it states something definitively different than many Catholics would interpret and in this it reveals a distinct belief about the nature of deity.

Quote

I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.

14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.

26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

In this, the question arises, how can we be one the same as the Son and the Father are One?  If they are one in essence, would that not also mean that we are too one in essence?  Or does it mean that we are all the same essence as believers?

The church, I do not feel, teaches this.

Instead...

In this the Church interprets it as one in purpose, or unity.  It is not that we are of the same essence in the way that a Trinitarian from a Baptist Background will believe...IN MY OPINION.

It is in no wise the same as the Protestant interpretation of the Trinity.

I would that all would come and believe in the same Gospel that we believe in, but I also know that many choose not too and that many have their own belief.  On this board I think we can freely advocate our views, but personally speaking, I do not find the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as closely aligned to the trinity as some may express it to be in the thread.  I do not think we will convince one to become a member of our church by trying to convince them that we believe the same as they do, but rather to hopefully have them read and study our beliefs and then pray about them, while understanding the DIFFERENCES between what we believe and what others believe.

At the same time, building upon common beliefs is also important, and I think it is essential to having better understanding between us and others.  We have some very common beliefs between each other.  I'm not sure trying to convince a solid Trinitarian that their belief is the same as an LDS belief is going to work, though.

Off shoot of this, we simply do not know what @AbramM girlfriend believes.  AS such, we are trying to tell him our beliefs and our ideas, independent of that.  This is fine, and hopefully he understands this.  I'm not sure this is doing much though.

On my part, ironically, I think it is easy to be Baptist and actually go to LDS services.  In Baptist belief, at least some of them, you are saved.  One who is saved should KNOW that they are saved.  IT causes an actual change or turning of heart.  Once saved, you are SAVED.  You are not suddenly UNSAVED.  You have been saved by the Lord and that is an act that continues.  He does not suddenly discharge this.  You cannot lose your salvation once saved in most Baptist doctrine.  This would be unfathomable and illogical.  Once saved, you HAVE your salvation guaranteed. 

As someone who is saved, you can go to any service you want.  You can basically do what you want, though your heart will not let you do something that is completely sinful or wrong.  You have been saved, your sins forgiven and the grace of the Lord is sufficient.  Why, then, if it is a permanent status, would one not be able go to LDS services?

Sometimes it is better to turn the other cheek and go the extra mile than to do otherwise.

HOWEVER, being unequally yoked can be destructive to ANY relationship.  It is good for many to seek someone who is on the same level as they are.  It can be hard for any marriage in this day and time to do well, more obstacles in the mix, such as different religious beliefs can make it even harder. 

Abram seems to be seeking one who has the same religious beliefs as he does.  Religion seems to be the foundation of his life and he would want it to be the foundation of his marriage.  This is commendable. 

I would say if he actually wants more knowledge on LDS beliefs, reading from the Book of Mormon could be a good start.  However, looking at his actual request it appears that he has gotten his answer in that regard.  He is working on that aspect (his girlfriend and finding a church) already.  I don't think he came here to actually investigate the church (though learning about it is good I would hope) and instead sought answers for a good church to attend that would feel comfortable for both him and the girl he was dating.  The answer is we do not know, but I'd still stick with the idea that if any church would be with what she shared with him, it would probably be a more traditional Baptist church that had a more traditional feel (traditional choir, etc.) or a Non-denominational church which tries to appeal to all sorts of ideas and views.

Of course, for most of us who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we would love to have him attend our church with his girlfriend.  I'm not sure that is the answer he is seeking (but as I point out, I don't actually think there'd be much wrong with it from a Baptist point of view if he was SAVED already as he cannot lose that salvation in most Baptist beliefs).

I joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because I read the Book of Mormon and prayed about it.  I was able to recognize the Holy Spirit telling me that the gospel was true.  This is why I joined the Church at the time, not necessarily because I understood everything about it or even agreed with all the doctrines at the time.  I, personally, have felt the Holy Spirit telling me that the gospel is true.

However, though I would hope all could come to the same answer and feelings I did, I also understand that what worked for me and helped me may not be what is for everyone else or even what anyone else may want to do.

He has his life and has some decisions and choices to make, which I think he is in the midst of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, AbramM said:

Yeah it's kind of a confusing time for me so I don't want to open myself up to other religions when I am vulnerable. 

From what I just recently learnt about LDS religion I think it's interesting but not for me. 

My heart goes out to you here, @AbramM.   I know you feel a deep sense of loss with the situation, betrayal, anger, confusion, and vulnerability.  You've strived your best to follow the Lord, and ended up in a curve-ball situation.   My heart goes deeply out to you.  You & your girl will be in my prayers.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
22 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

I suspect most people of faith will feel out of their depth, and resort to trusting the gifted teachers of their religious movement.

Unfortunately, I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Here it states that they are both separate and yet the same being in a protestant understanding.  As it says, the Word was both With and WAS at the same time, Deity.

And then, it says that the Word was made Flesh, and that no man hath seen the Father, but have seen the Son. 

There are other verses, but this is one that many Trinitarians can turn to for a particularly strong showing of scriptural backing of their belief.  It does NOT state that they were ONE in purpose, but that they are actually ONE and the SAME.  At the same time it also makes clear that they are DIFFERENT.

Yes I was referencing the prologue to John but I never got around to explaining it.

You are a very wise man sir. 

23 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

On my part, ironically, I think it is easy to be Baptist and actually go to LDS services.  In Baptist belief, at least some of them, you are saved.  One who is saved should KNOW that they are saved.  IT causes an actual change or turning of heart.  Once saved, you are SAVED.  You are not suddenly UNSAVED.  You have been saved by the Lord and that is an act that continues.  He does not suddenly discharge this.  You cannot lose your salvation once saved in most Baptist doctrine.  This would be unfathomable and illogical.  Once saved, you HAVE your salvation guaranteed. 

 

Yes I am saved and I could go to many churches or never go to church again. Although, the Lord wants me to attend a church where I will be edified and strengthened and I can worship him. I wouldn't partake in rituals at a church that I find blasphemous or heretical such as a Catholic Mass. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

My heart goes out to you here, @AbramM.   I know you feel a deep sense of loss with the situation, betrayal, anger, confusion, and vulnerability.  You've strived your best to follow the Lord, and ended up in a curve-ball situation.   My heart goes deeply out to you.  You & your girl will be in my prayers.   

My mom came to visit me yesterday I guess her mom sense told her I was sad  because she surprised me. I actually feel a lot better now though :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AbramM said:

Yes I was referencing the prologue to John but I never got around to explaining it.

You are a very wise man sir. 

Yes I am saved and I could go to many churches or never go to church again. Although, the Lord wants me to attend a church where I will be edified and strengthened and I can worship him. I wouldn't partake in rituals at a church that I find blasphemous or heretical such as a Catholic Mass. 

 

And in this, from a Baptist point of view, your heart would dissuade you from doing such things.  A Saved individual has their heart turned towards the things of heaven rather than the things of the world.

You should probably do as you feel in your heart (as a Saved individual) rather than that where the world tells you.

Something that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has as an idea or Article of Faith goes as follows...

Quote

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our [own]1 conscience, and allow all men the same privilege[,] let them worship how, where, or what they may.

You need to follow the dictates of your own conscience in where you will worship and how you will do so.  Hopefully you can find a place when you get married where you can do so.  Finding a wife (and if your girlfriend is the one to do that, it is good, but if not, than hopefully you will find another that you can do so with) that can worship alongside you can be an important facet and foundation of marriage.

You are still young though, so you still have a lot of time left in front of you for weighty decisions, no need to rush headlong into it.  Take time to make sure she is the right one, and that you and her share the right values that you want to have in a spouse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share