Can I go visit everything at my local Mormon Temple?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jean_Marie_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Allweather said:
The trinitarian “idea” originated in the sayings of Jesus as recorded in the NT. The term doesn’t show up there, but it is obviously set forth by Jesus. Jesus makes many references to himself as both separate from and united with God the Father, and he makes references to the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, subsequent to his ascension. Without getting into a long discourse on development of the doctrine, which I am unqualified to do in any case, all I can say is that Trinity comes from Jesus, and the doctrine was developed out of a need to reconcile all that he said and did, as to the nature of God, of which he himself stands as the most clearly revealed person.

Trinity had to express the three-ness that Jesus taught, but also preserve the one-ness of the Ancient of Days (not Adam, but God Almighty, for all you Adam-God believers). The monotheism of the Hebrew religion, from which Christianity sprang, could not be abandoned under any circumstances. Trinity had to reconcile the teachings of Jesus with the teachings of the Jews with respect to the nature of God, and that’s what it does. God is one, and he shows himself to man in three separate, distinct personalities while retaining his one-ness as the God who revealed himself to Moses saying, “I am who am.”
Click to expand...
Thank you Allweather - that was enlightening. I strongly respect many aspects of the Catholic (and others’) trinity. In fact, I agree with most of it. The thing I just can’t get is the whole “one being” thing. I am just curious what scriptures in the Bible Catholics derive this concept from, and is it just an interpretation, or do we have actual evidence of this concept clearly being defined around the time of Christ? I can see the 3 separate beings part as you explain - that is evidenced throughout the Bible, but why can’t those 3 beings also be separate beyond this earth, with Christ being the actual God of this world? I can see interpreting many of the scriptures in the Bible both ways. Arius and others seemed to interpret it differently - why? Again, I hope these questions don’t offend anyone. I am genuinely curious, and I promise I won’t argue your answers.
 
jstayii said:
Thank you Allweather - that was enlightening. I strongly respect many aspects of the Catholic (and others’) trinity. In fact, I agree with most of it. The thing I just can’t get is the whole “one being” thing. I am just curious what scriptures in the Bible Catholics derive this concept from, and is it just an interpretation, or do we have actual evidence of this concept clearly being defined around the time of Christ?** I can see the 3 separate beings part as you explain - that is evidenced throughout the Bible, but why can’t those 3 beings also be separate beyond this earth, with Christ being the actual God of this world?** I can see interpreting many of the scriptures in the Bible both ways. Arius and others seemed to interpret it differently - why? Again, I hope these questions don’t offend anyone. I am genuinely curious, and I promise I won’t argue your answers.
Click to expand...
Not three separate beings but separate persons. This gets into the definitions of “person” and “being” which I will leave for others far more qualified than I am to discuss. Here is the definition of The Holy Trinity from Fr Hardon’s Abridged Pocket Catholic Dictionary:

"A term used since A.D. 200 to denote the central doctrine of the Christian religion. God, who is one and unique in his infinite substance or nature, is three really distinct persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The one and only God is the Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit. Yet God the Father is not God the Son, but generates the Son eternally, as the Son is eternally begotten. The Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, but a distinct person having his divine nature from the Father and the Son by eternal procession. The three divine persons are co-equal, co-eternal, and consubstantial and deserve co-equal glory and adoration."

Here is a link to a set of articles on this and related subjects at Catholic Answers. There is also an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia somewhere online that has a fairly elaborate layout of the doctrine and its development, both from Scripture and Tradition:

catholic.com/library/god_christ.asp
 
Fidelia said:
Because Mormonism is a cult. My friend (Protestant) lived in Utah for a while for her father’s job, and she told me all about the Mormno’s she knew. A lot of them don’t even know what they are really worshipping. For a wedding, it is only the bride, groom, and minister (or whatever) allowed in. They believe Satan and God are brothers, so given that, try to figure out the Trinity and who they worship.
Click to expand...
Fidelia, Mormons are not Trinitarians.
 
jstayii said:
I’m sorry your friend had that experience. It pains me to see that someone was treated in such an un-Christian like manner. That is not what our religion teaches us to do. Any Mormon who thinks so is wrong, and I apologize on their behalf. I too live in a predominantly Mormon neighborhood in Utah. Most of my neighbors around me are non-Mormons. I am great friends with them. Our kids play together and are friends. It is too bad that some areas people believe they can’t be friends due to their religion. I have seen this in other religions, including Christian, and I know that is not what their religion teaches.

I don’t know where you’re getting the notion that Mormons don’t believe they are Christian. Our religion is centered around Christ. Our church is named the “Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints”. The Book of Mormon is entitled “The Book of Mormon, Another Testament of JESUS CHRIST”. We have one of the largest collections of Bible references to Jesus Christ available for anyone to use. We believe in Jesus Christ as our Savior, and the only way to return to live with God. We believe He died for us, suffered for our sins, and by His Grace we are saved! We strive to follow His example and follow His teachings. Most Mormons who live their religion have a strong relationship with their Savior and are very offended when people say they aren’t “Christian”. If that isn’t what a true Christian should be, then what is?
Click to expand...
A Trinitarian. 😃
 
Semper_Fi said:
A Trinitarian. 😃
Click to expand...
That’s fine - I think Mormons will agree with you there. They are not Trinitarians. We define the term “Christian” a little differently than others - we don’t base it on the Trinity, but rather on Christ Himself. Assuming “Christian” means you believe in the Trinity (I’ve seen multiple meanings of “Christian” out there), then no, Mormons are not Christian. Assuming “Christian” means you believe in Christ, worship Him as your God and Savior, and prescribe to His teachings, and follow Him in word and deed, then yes, most Mormons are “Christians”. That is why we take offense when we are called “not Christian” - not all the world defines it by Trinity.
 
jstayii said:
That’s fine - I think Mormons will agree with you there. They are not Trinitarians. We define the term “Christian” a little differently than others - we don’t base it on the Trinity, but rather on Christ Himself. Assuming “Christian” means you believe in the Trinity (I’ve seen multiple meanings of “Christian” out there), then no, Mormons are not Christian. Assuming “Christian” means you believe in Christ, worship Him as your God and Savior, and prescribe to His teachings, and follow Him in word and deed, then yes, most Mormons are “Christians”. That is why we take offense when we are called “not Christian” - not all the world defines it by Trinity.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, Christian is in its most absolute definition when it is Catholic. It is true that many of the Protestant sects retain certain features of orthodoxy which permit them to be called Christian. Some don’t. Mormons aren’t the only non-Trinitarians out there. Some Protestant sects which think that Mormons are doomed to Hell for their heresies, are also Oneness religions which reject the Trinity as a Catholic fable.

Regardless of your position with respect to Trinity, or Immaculate Conception, or the Magisterium, unless you are united with the Catholic Church and under the authority of it, then you aren’t fully Christian. You may have certain Christian features, and may even have enough of them to attain to the salvation of the Catholic Church through which God has designed to reconcile mankind to Himself, and be called Christian in some sense of that word, but you won’t be fully Christian in the Catholic, or Universal, sense of it.
 
Allweather said:
The trinitarian “idea” originated in the sayings of Jesus as recorded in the NT. The term doesn’t show up there, but it is obviously set forth by Jesus. Jesus makes many references to himself as both separate from and united with God the Father, and he makes references to the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, subsequent to his ascension. Without getting into a long discourse on development of the doctrine, which I am unqualified to do in any case, all I can say is that Trinity comes from Jesus, and the doctrine was developed out of a need to reconcile all that he said and did, as to the nature of God, of which he himself stands as the most clearly revealed person.

Trinity had to express the three-ness that Jesus taught, but also preserve the one-ness of the Ancient of Days (not Adam, but God Almighty, for all you Adam-God believers). The monotheism of the Hebrew religion, from which Christianity sprang, could not be abandoned under any circumstances. Trinity had to reconcile the teachings of Jesus with the teachings of the Jews with respect to the nature of God, and that’s what it does. God is one, and he shows himself to man in three separate, distinct personalities while retaining his one-ness as the God who revealed himself to Moses saying, “I am who am.”
Click to expand...
I am still confused as to the origins of the Arian point of view. There were, from my limited research, conflicting points of view at the council of Nice and others before and after it over the nature of God. What was Arius’s backup in stating God the Father was a separate being from God the Son, etc. Were there origins of this before him? It seemed to be a hot topic at the time, as it compelled Constantine to settle it by calling the Council of Nice and settle the matter. I can’t imagine it being the beliefs of just a few to compel him to do that. Why can’t I find much on that part of the history? I just can’t accept that Arius, a strong and devout Christian of the time, would delve in Pagan beliefs to get this - do we have evidence that this is actually the case? It just doesn’t make sense to me why he and others felt so strongly about what they did on the non-Trinitarian view of the Godhead. I’d like to know more - is there any reliable history out there on the origins of this?
 
I would first point you to the catechism since that will give you the authoritative stance of the Catholic church with good supporting analysis of how we got there. THEN I would go to the history books. I think you misinterpret Constantine’s role and motivations as well as the “importance” of the Arian heresy. I am at work right, perhaps someone else can post a good link to the relevant portions of the catechism online? and some good solid, verifiable historical sites would be good too.
 
jstayii said:
I am still confused as to the origins of the Arian point of view. There were, from my limited research, conflicting points of view at the council of Nice and others before and after it over the nature of God. What was Arius’s backup in stating God the Father was a separate being from God the Son, etc. Were there origins of this before him? It seemed to be a hot topic at the time, as it compelled Constantine to settle it by calling the Council of Nice and settle the matter. I can’t imagine it being the beliefs of just a few to compel him to do that. Why can’t I find much on that part of the history? I just can’t accept that Arius, a strong and devout Christian of the time, would delve in Pagan beliefs to get this - do we have evidence that this is actually the case? It just doesn’t make sense to me why he and others felt so strongly about what they did on the non-Trinitarian view of the Godhead. I’d like to know more - is there any reliable history out there on the origins of this?
Click to expand...
The issue that was in dispute in the Council of Nicaea was not whether the Father and the Son were two Gods or one. That was not even on the menu. The controversy centered on the doctrine of the divinity of Christ. Arius had proposed an elaborate theory of the Godhead that at its essence denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. The Nicene council was held to resolve that dispute—not whether there were two Gods or one.

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
The issue that was in dispute in the Council of Nicaea was not whether the Father and the Son were two Gods or one. That was not even on the menu. The controversy centered on the doctrine of the divinity of Christ. Arius had proposed an elaborate theory of the Godhead that at its essence denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. The Nicene council was held to resolve that dispute—not whether there were two Gods or one.
Click to expand...
I trust you have done your research and understand this, but just for my reference, do you have any quotes of the fact? I really like to research the early Saints and early issues of the early Christian church, so anything quoting of that era that supports what you say is very interesting to me.
 
jstayii said:
I trust you have done your research and understand this, but just for my reference, do you have any quotes of the fact? I really like to research the early Saints and early issues of the early Christian church, so anything quoting of that era that supports what you say is very interesting to me.
Click to expand...
The best article that I have found that gives a fair treatment of the subject from both an LDS, as well as from a traditional Christian point of view is this one:

geocities.com/essays12/UScreeds.pdf

It is a PDF file. There is also an HTML version of it if you can’t open PDF files on your computer.

zerinus
 
jstayii said:
I trust you have done your research and understand this, but just for my reference, do you have any quotes of the fact? I really like to research the early Saints and early issues of the early Christian church, so anything quoting of that era that supports what you say is very interesting to me.
Click to expand...
Here’s a link to the article at Catholic Encyclopedia online for Arianism:

newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm
 
This Arianism does it have anything to do with Aryan? The guys who like burning things 🙂
 
zerinus said:
The best article that I have found that gives a fair treatment of the subject from both an LDS, as well as from a traditional Christian point of view is this one:

geocities.com/essays12/UScreeds.pdf

It is a PDF file. There is also an HTML version of it if you can’t open PDF files on your computer.

zerinus
Click to expand...
Thank you zerinus - that is one of the best and most enlightening articles I have read on the subject. I think the best way to learn about each other is to learn the language and culture each other use, and I think that article does that beautifully.
 
Thank you everyone for all the great quotes and links. This discussion has turned out to be very enlightening. I appreciate both mine and the Catholic church even more now - that, to me is a productive discussion.
 
Kitty_Chan said:
thanks, I also looked up aryan it has gone through alot of meanings. Why does everyone hate wikipedia so much, or dare I ask?
Click to expand...
I think it’s a great place to go find a lot of stuff on a single topic. Because it is editable by anyone, though, often unsubstantial opinions get in there. I think it’s fine if you cross-reference all the quotes and things printed there though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top