Do LDS baptize converts immediately?

[iepuras]

The things I find most anchoring in the LDS faith as opposed to others their theology on agency, the nature of God, and the purpose of this life.

Interesting.

How is agency different from free will?

The more and more I contemplated the LDS beliefs on the nature of God, the less it made sense. I dabbled a bit in philosophy in college and I found Aristotelian metaphysics to make the most sense. I also found the Scholastics and Natural Law to be reasonable and compelling. When it comes down to it, Mormonism holds to metaphysical materialism, which ultimately leads to atheism (or at least agnosticism). I think this is why so many ex-LDS become atheist/agnostic. They reject the God of Mormonism but do not reject materialism (the metaphysics kind) so they end up atheist. I never accepted materialism as it never made much sense to me, so atheism was never reasonable for me, no matter how much I really wanted it at one point.

I don’t find the LDS purpose of life to be particularly desirable. I don’t really want to be married for eternity or to have spirit babies for eternity. Being in the presence of my Lord and God along with the other saints (which hopefully will also include my family) is enough for me. What more could I want than God Himself?

I also find it very hard to make friends at church, even when I try (just super hard to relate to a stay-at-home-mom who frankly seems really sheltered).

What I like about visiting other churches is the different sites, different people, and different ways of looking at things. I love diversity.

I do hear you on the difficulty of making friends in the LDS church, especially when one does not fit inside the “Mormon box”. The only time I had a lot of LDS friends was when I attended a YSA ward. There were plenty of other women like me, working professionals who never had dates with LDS men. After I married, I was a fish out of water again in a family ward. Working mom with a master’s degree and a professional career. I felt much more comfortable talking to the men than the women, which I don’t think a lot of the women appreciated.

I hated Young Women’s because all I was taught by the leaders (and my mother) was that I needed to get married (to an RM of course), have many children and be a stay at home mom. And if I didn’t have it in this life, then I would have it in the celestial kingdom. God did not create us all the same. I didn’t appreciate that in the LDS church, the women are expected to do the same thing - get married and raise children.

 

[jane_doe]

The more and more I contemplated the LDS beliefs on the nature of God, the less it made sense. I dabbled a bit in philosophy in college and I found Aristotelian metaphysics to make the most sense. I also found the Scholastics and Natural Law to be reasonable and compelling.

Iepuras, I really have enjoyed chatting with you .

It is interesting how people can study the same body of evidence, and reach exactly opposite conclusions. The more and more I have studied the trinity, trying hard to understand it, the less sense it made to me, and less I saw it in the Bible. While I studied philosophy in college, I fell in love with the Greek philosophers, finding them and Natural Law to be fantastic thought-tools. My studied with them resonated deeply with Mormonism, and clashed when trying to meld with Trinitarian beliefs in any logical way.

I don’t find the LDS purpose of life to be particularly desirable. I don’t really want to be married for eternity or to have spirit babies for eternity. Being in the presence of my Lord and God along with the other saints (which hopefully will also include my family) is enough for me. What more could I want than God Himself?

Again, same evidence, reaching opposite conclusions. I find the LDS concept of the afterlife enthralling: learning and growing, with multiplying joy and loved ones, including the great I Am.

I do hear you on the difficulty of making friends in the LDS church, especially when one does not fit inside the “Mormon box”. The only time I had a lot of LDS friends was when I attended a YSA ward. There were plenty of other women like me, working professionals who never had dates with LDS men. After I married, I was a fish out of water again in a family ward. Working mom with a master’s degree and a professional career. I felt much more comfortable talking to the men than the women, which I don’t think a lot of the women appreciated.

I hated Young Women’s because all I was taught by the leaders (and my mother) was that I needed to get married (to an RM of course), have many children and be a stay at home mom.

Now in this, you and I are exactly on the same page! I totally don’t fit in any box and did not do the marriage RM track thing. Totally ignored my YW leaders too (not a fun time in my life). I never dated an LDS guy.

Nowadays, me being the working mom, I am different, and find myself becoming ‘one-of-the-guys’. Just last week I had my new visiting teacher over, and while we had good genuine conversation, about halfway through I realized I wanted to meet her husband and make friends with him instead (the two of us having similar interests and hobbies).

While the above is frustrating, it is good for me to forced out of my comfort zone. Yes, I judge the stay-at-home moms, and can be egotistical: such is my sinful pride that needs overcome. It is good for me to hangout with someone who doesn’t have a phD, and to realize that my education or career does NOT make me a better person than they.

 

[jane_doe]

What is there about the theology on agency, how is it different than others belief in free will?

“Free Will” is pretty synonymous with “free agency”. In the LDS theology, the right to choose good versus evil is an essential quality inherited from our Heaven Father. It is key to the Plan of Happiness, the nature of God, our growth, understanding why things happen the way they do, respecting others etc. The right to choose in of the things at the foundation of it all, and it talked about a lot.

Different Christian denominations do vary on their understanding/emphasis on free will. For example, calvinistic predetermination is another school thought. I’ve never had the opportunity to dissect Catholic thoughts on the matter.

 

[Telstar]

If you don’t mind me asking, what were they doing which was so heretical? Do you feel that things have improved today?

I’ll just give you one glaring example that I remember, that epitomized the fact in my mind, that there was something very wrong with some of the things that were happening because of the misconceptions of what Vat II meant when it talked about ‘ecumenism’. I remember reading about one particular Priest (don’t recall where) that invited people of any and all faiths to come and join him in celebrating an ‘ecumenical Mass’. It sounded harmless enough to most people, although some Catholics weren’t too sure what it meant, or what would happen. To the absolute horror of many Catholics there, and many others who read about it later, after the Consecration (the blessing of the bread and wine), the Priest walked down and proceeded to just toss Holy Communion into the crowd, by the handful (IIRC the Mass was celebrated in a public park). It was one of the saddest and most infuriating things I had ever heard in my life. :banghead:

Yes, things have improved since then, but I think there are still a lot of misconceptions out there, that still cause more errors to occur.

Yes, culture and local traditions influence LDS, Catholics, and any other group. However, I am finding that LDS tend to be more centralized that Catholics; specifically things like dogma is very set forth in the form of standardized lesson manuals throughout the world. But Mormons are highly encouraged to put things in there individual words, which diversifies the way things are said.

Of course, we have the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is our standard for anyone interested in learning about the Faith. Apparently, it’s a regular part of weekly worship for LDS to have time set aside for teaching lessons, even for adults that already know their religion. To my knowledge, this is not something that any other churches do. Catholics, and most other Christians (I think), only have classes for children to learn about their religion. Nowadays, most religious education classes are usually held on a different day in Catholic parishes, at least around here, while I think most other Christian churches still have theirs on Sunday (“Sunday school”).

Disclaimer: I am pretty sure you’re going to disagree with my next statement, but it is my thoughts, and we of course can agree to disagree.

The things I find most anchoring in the LDS faith as opposed to others their theology on agency, the nature of God, and the purpose of this life.

From what I know about the LDS term “free agency”, it’s analogous to most of the rest of Christianity’s concept of “free will”. So, Mormonism certainly isn’t the only church that teaches that. I don’t know where they get the idea that they are. That’s how Adam and Eve fell from grace, because God gave them free will to choose to obey Him, or not. They chose not to. Every human being in the world has free will to choose their own path in life.

What I do not find particularly anchoring is UT culture, 9 babies screaming during worship service, layman speakers which go “um” every third word, and when the organist plays like it’s a funeral. Most of all, when I’ve heard the same lesson so many times I can recite it word-for-word. I also find it very hard to make friends at church, even when I try (just super hard to relate to a stay-at-home-mom who frankly seems really sheltered).

Many Catholic churches have ‘crying rooms’, or parents will just get up and leave the church if their baby is crying, so they don’t disrupt the Mass.

We don’t really have layman speakers, except the lectors that read Bible passages. But, they’re just reading from the Bible, so there usually isn’t a lot of “ums” involved. The Priest reads the from the Gospel, then gives a ‘homily’. Some Priests might have a few flubs, but they usually have a theme, and a plan of what they want to say related to that Gospel. Some are definitely better at giving a homily than others, but nobody’s perfect.

I have to say that our parish has a very good choir that adds even more beauty to the experience of the Mass, but I have been to others that might be a little less ‘polished’, and that would definitely make me cringe. :ehh:

What I like about visiting other churches is the different sites, different people, and different ways of looking at things. I love diversity.

Diversity is all well and good, in life. But, when it comes to the real truth in religion, I prefer to stick with my Catholicism. I had a period in my very early years, when I completely lost my way for a while (just after the changes of Vat II began). I ventured into learning about many other religions, some just through reading about them, and others by visiting churches. Some of them were on the dark side, and completely outside of Christianity (those really scared me). But, I always felt that there was something missing, in all of them. The thing that was missing, was the Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. That’s what’s always brought me back to the Catholic Church. Being without Communion leaves a hunger, deep in your soul, that nothing else can ever satisfy.

 

[jane_doe]

To the absolute horror of many Catholics there, and many others who read about it later, after the Consecration (the blessing of the bread and wine), the Priest walked down and proceeded to just toss Holy Communion into the crowd, by the handful (IIRC the Mass was celebrated in a public park). It was one of the saddest and most infuriating things I had ever heard in my life. :bang head:

I can see the scandal!

Yes, things have improved since then, but I think there are still a lot of misconceptions out there, that still cause more errors to occur.

Apparently, it’s a regular part of weekly worship for LDS to have time set aside for teaching lessons, even for adults that already know their religion. To my knowledge, this is not something that any other churches do. Catholics, and most other Christians (I think), only have classes for children to learn about their religion. Nowadays, most religious education classes are usually held on a different day in Catholic parishes, at least around here, while I think most other Christian churches still have theirs on Sunday (“Sunday school”).

You are correct: LDS do have Sunday School for adults: you pick which class you want to go to. There’s one that’s intro-to-Mormonism, another scripture reading and studying for seasoned members, and various special topics like martial counseling, family history, etc. Sunday School is the 2nd hour of the 3 hr long Sunday service. The 1st hr being when everyone in the congregation meets together for communion, singing, and sermons; and 3rd hour being classes specifically for your age/gender (mostly same topics for everyone). It used to be that these classes were held during the week, but they changed that a couple of decades ago to accommodate the people whom have a long commute to church.

Most protestant churches I’ve visited “Sunday School” means: rather than have the kids attend ‘main’ service with the grownups, little ones are shipped off to age-specifc classes. If an adult wants to learn about the church, protestants typically have a weekday meetings for that (sort similar to RCIA).

From what I know about the LDS term “free agency”, it’s analogous to most of the rest of Christianity’s concept of “free will”. So, Mormonism certainly isn’t the only church that teaches that. I don’t know where they get the idea that they are. That’s how Adam and Eve fell from grace, because God gave them free will to choose to obey Him, or not. They chose not to. Every human being in the world has free will to choose their own path in life.

You act like that’s a bad thing! Yes, we make bad choices and screw up, but we learn and grow through our falls, including to rely on the Savior. Would you rather us not have a choice in things?

Many Catholic churches have ‘crying rooms’, or parents will just get up and leave the church if their baby is crying, so they don’t disrupt the Mass.

Mormons have them too… lots of moms just fail to actually use them…

The thing that was missing, was the Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. That’s what’s always brought me back to the Catholic Church. Being without Communion leaves a hunger, deep in your soul, that nothing else can ever satisfy.

Thank you very much for sharing

 

[zaffiroborant]

.

You act like that’s a bad thing! Yes, we make bad choices and screw up, but we learn and grow through our falls, including to rely on the Savior. Would you rather us not have a choice in things?

I don’t see that he thinks it’s a bad thing he just doesn’t understand why so many LDS seem to think they are the only ones who hold that idea, same goes with being with family in heaven.

 

[XuDan]

This is one of the many reasons why I love being Catholic.

Jane and XuDan, if you are interested in Eastern Christian spirituality, I recommend checking out this documentary, “Mysteries of the Jesus Prayer”, on the Jesus Prayer, which is a very, very old devotion. This is the tv version, but there is a longer version available on Amazon and elsewhere. My only complaint is that the Romanian monasteries they visit are NOT in Transylvania! They are in Bucovina! I know because I have been there.

youtube.com/watch?v=697OSC6BgTs

Much of Eastern Christian spirituality comes from the ascetics, monks and nuns.

Just finished watching the documentary, loved it! Thank you for the recommendation!

 

[Telstar]

I can see the scandal!

Yeah, I cried a lot when I heard that one.

You are correct: LDS do have Sunday School for adults: you pick which class you want to go to. There’s one that’s intro-to-Mormonism, another scripture reading and studying for seasoned members, and various special topics like martial counseling, family history, etc. Sunday School is the 2nd hour of the 3 hr long Sunday service. The 1st hr being when everyone in the congregation meets together for communion, singing, and sermons; and 3rd hour being classes specifically for your age/gender (mostly same topics for everyone). It used to be that these classes were held during the week, but they changed that a couple of decades ago to accommodate the people whom have a long commute to church.

OK, so the lessons for adults that already know the faith are more like a ‘Bible study’. That makes sense.

Most protestant churches I’ve visited “Sunday School” means: rather than have the kids attend ‘main’ service with the grownups, little ones are shipped off to age-specifc classes. If an adult wants to learn about the church, protestants typically have a weekday meetings for that (sort similar to RCIA).

For Catholics, CCD (Confraternity of Christian Doctrine) goes pretty much along the lines of grades in school, with an instructor and teachings appropriate for each class level.

You act like that’s a bad thing! Yes, we make bad choices and screw up, but we learn and grow through our falls, including to rely on the Savior. Would you rather us not have a choice in things?

Huh? I most certainly do not think it’s a bad thing. I screw up every day, so you’ll get no argument there. It’s just that it’s ‘common knowledge’ in most of Christianity (except among Calvinists and a few others), and nothing out of the ordinary. You’re the one that made it sound like ‘agency’ (free will) was a new and different concept, unique to Mormonism. I was just saying it’s not.

Mormons have them too… lots of moms just fail to actually use them…

Yeah, sometimes it can be difficult, especially when it happens during the homily. Some Priests might get annoyed, but I’ve seen others make a joke about it, like the baby was giving his opinion on the sermon.

Thank you very much for sharing

You’re welcome. That’s definitely been the hardest part of dealing with my anxiety.

 

[iepuras]

Just finished watching the documentary, loved it! Thank you for the recommendation!

Glad you enjoyed it!

 

[iepuras]

Iepuras, I really have enjoyed chatting with you .

Thank you. It is a good conversation.

It is interesting how people can study the same body of evidence, and reach exactly opposite conclusions. The more and more I have studied the trinity, trying hard to understand it, the less sense it made to me, and less I saw it in the Bible. While I studied philosophy in college, I fell in love with the Greek philosophers, finding them and Natural Law to be fantastic thought-tools. My studied with them resonated deeply with Mormonism, and clashed when trying to meld with Trinitarian beliefs in any logical way.

Actually, studying philosophy isn’t want caused me to leave Mormonism. It did help me to believe in God (not Heavenly Father) after I left Mormonism and my faith was nearly shattered. Ed Feser’s book “The Last Superstition” really helped me to reject atheism and solidified my belief in God. When it came to the Trinity, the Bible helped me a lot, along with another book that I borrowed from a deacon (I don’t remember the title) which focused on the writings of many of the Early Church Fathers starting with Justin Martyr.

I didn’t start seriously studying Catholicism and support for belief in the Trinity, the Real Presence and the Marian dogmas until I thoroughly rejected Mormonism came to a belief in one God and that Jesus is God due to belief in the Resurrection. I rejected Mormonism when I started seriously studying Joseph Smith and the history of the LDS church. I simply found that Joseph Smith was entirely untrustworthy so there was absolutely zero reason to believe any of his truth claims about God, the need for a restoration or anything claimed by Smith and the LDS church.

Again, same evidence, reaching opposite conclusions. I find the LDS concept of the afterlife enthralling: learning and growing, with multiplying joy and loved ones, including the great I Am.

In all honesty, the “Plan of Salvation” was the last thing for me to give up. I always thought that it was beautiful, at least on the surface. But I had to utterly reject it because it came from Joseph Smith who was a false prophet. The Plan of Salvation does have a dark underbelly with the belief in 3 kingdoms of glory and the doctrine of polygyny.

You see, the LDS do believe that families can be separated after death due to the 3 kingdoms of glory. Even LDS admit that very few make it to the celestial kingdom with the guarantee of being with their families in a family relationship for eternity. Missionaries just don’t really mention that. What good is a sealing when my parents will theoretically make it to the celestial kingdom but I may only be lucky to be in the telestial kingdom (since I am an apostate, even though I am a much better person as a Catholic)? We are still separated.

Or what about the situation of a good, faithful LDS woman who has a husband who is not a faithful LDS either because he never joins the LDS church or is LDS but doesn’t believe in it and isn’t faithful? What about that sealing (or lack thereof)? Or all the single members of the LDS church who never get married? It’s comes down to the hope that “it will all get worked out”.

As a woman who was a single LDS for a very long time, I sincerely believed that the only way I would ever get married would be in the celestial kingdom when I would be “assigned” a husband and I would be a plural wife. I feared it greatly. Then I got married to a man who was a convert but never actually believed in it. He simply went to church with me to make me happy. I knew this before I ever left the LDS church. So even though I had an “LDS” husband I was sealed to, I still feared having to either 1) share him in the CK or 2) being “reassigned” to another man because my husband wasn’t faithful. Still not anything to look forward too.

How is that any better than what traditional Christianity teaches about heaven?

While I fear hell, I do not fear what will happen if I make it to heaven. I will have God and be part of the communion of saints. I don’t need anything else.

Now in this, you and I are exactly on the same page! I totally don’t fit in any box and did not do the marriage RM track thing. Totally ignored my YW leaders too (not a fun time in my life). I never dated an LDS guy.

Nowadays, me being the working mom, I am different, and find myself becoming ‘one-of-the-guys’. Just last week I had my new visiting teacher over, and while we had good genuine conversation, about halfway through I realized I wanted to meet her husband and make friends with him instead (the two of us having similar interests and hobbies).

While the above is frustrating, it is good for me to forced out of my comfort zone. Yes, I judge the stay-at-home moms, and can be egotistical: such is my sinful pride that needs overcome. It is good for me to hangout with someone who doesn’t have a phD, and to realize that my education or career does NOT make me a better person than they.

In my last ward, there were some stay at home moms that I really liked and enjoyed talking to. We actually had similar interests when it came to things outside of our “day jobs”. They were usually my age or a bit older so most of their children were older than mine.

There are plenty of stay at home moms (both in and out of the LDS church) who are quite educated and have plenty of life experiences, often because they did not get married at age 19 or 20 and spent some time figuring things out before settling down.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

Iepuras, I really have enjoyed chatting with you .

It is interesting how people can study the same body of evidence, and reach exactly opposite conclusions. The more and more I have studied the trinity, trying hard to understand it, the less sense it made to me, and less I saw it in the Bible. While I studied philosophy in college, I fell in love with the Greek philosophers, finding them and Natural Law to be fantastic thought-tools. My studied with them resonated deeply with Mormonism, and clashed when trying to meld with Trinitarian beliefs in any logical way.

When I first started investigating Catholicism a couple decades ago I found that the two teachings that completely boggled my mind were the Trinity and the Eucharist. Almost everything else I was learning about Catholic doctrine made logical sense and was internally consistent. I didn’t necessarily believe any of it, but it was at least sensible to me. The Trinity and the Eucharist were just… bizarre; seemingly illogical.

Eventually I came to realize that my biggest hurdle in understanding (not necessarily believing) the Trinity and the Eucharist was that I kept approaching the problem with my Mormon philosophical assumptions, namely that of materialism. Mormonism is inherently materialistic and this is evidenced not only by uniquely LDS teachings (creation ex materia, supra-material spirits, etc.) but also the kinds of questions LDS typically ask of Catholics. “How could the Trinity be true? Was Jesus talking to himself in the Garden? Was Heavenly Father saying that he was pleased with himself during Christ’s baptism?” or “How could the Eucharist be literally Jesus? So if I drink his blood I won’t get drunk?” or “Why wouldn’t theosis/deification include a literal becoming a god? If we’re heirs of the Father and joint-heirs of Christ then why wouldn’t that include everything they have and are?”

These kinds of questions are only sensible coming from assumptions of philosophical materialism since materialism assumes that all phenomena ultimately are the result of interactions of matter whether its the actual matter we observe in the world or the “elastic and refined matter of spirit” that Joseph Smith taught. Using materialism as a starting point a person necessarily conflates, person with being, and substance with accident. These distinctions simply don’t exist within a materialistic framework so it isn’t at all surprising that when a materialist and an idealist come together and discuss such matters (ha! ) the materialist can’t fully grasp what the idealist is saying.

So when a Catholic says “We believe there is one Divine being that eternally exists in three Divine persons” The materalist (whether a spiritual materialist like a Mormon or a true physicalist like an atheist) hears “We believe there is one Divine thing that eternally exists in three Divine things” and then naturally starts to scratch her head Granted I don’t think I’ve ever heard a Mormon use the word “thing” and “things” when trying to honestly articulate the Dogma of the Trinity. I only used that word in order to show the consistency of the conflation of matter and spirit for the materialist.

A real example I’ve heard lots of times (and you can easily confirm this on these very boards) is that a Mormon will often say something along the lines of “So you Catholics believe God is one being who exists in three forms” implying that form is a quality of one’s person. But form is a quality of one’s being! In effect the Mormon really is saying “So you Catholics believe God is one being but also three beings?” For the materialist one’s person must be a function of one’s being and so any attempt at distinguishing the two leads to a necessary confusion.

For the materialist the accidents of an object must in some way depend on the substance of that object such that any alteration in one quality necessarily leads to a change in the other. With this assumption of course the Real Presence of the Eucharist is nonsense! How on earth could you change the entirety of the substance and yet have zero change in the accidents if one is working with materialist assumptions?

For the materialist all identity and function arises necessarily from being since there is no true distinction between being and person. The Bible says that Jesus is the only begotten son of the Father and it also says that we become adopted sons of God and thus joint-heirs with Christ. Without that distinction between being and person a materialist necessarily concludes that theosis must involve the literal evolution of our human natures into divine natures (indeed in Mormonism there isn’t even such a distinction between human and divine natures! We are all “intelligences” that have eternally existed with God and we have the exact same nature as God). For the idealist our inheriting of divinity must come from outside ourselves since we are not divine beings, we are human beings, and this inheritance is possible because beings do not inherit, rather persons do.

It wasn’t until I checked my materialism at the door and looked at it all afresh using the Catholic understanding of Aristotelian idealism that I finally began to understand (though not yet believe) the doctrines of the Trinity and the Real Presence. This is of course quite difficult to do if one is heavily grounded in their own assumption about the world (and doubly difficult for yours truly as both a Mormon and a scientist). The endeavor is, though, highly satisfying and I do encourage you to give it a try.

 

[Horton]

When I first started investigating Catholicism a couple decades ago I found that the two teachings that completely boggled my mind were the Trinity and the Eucharist. Almost everything else I was learning about Catholic doctrine made logical sense and was internally consistent. I didn’t necessarily believe any of it, but it was at least sensible to me. The Trinity and the Eucharist were just… bizarre; seemingly illogical.

Eventually I came to realize that my biggest hurdle in understanding (not necessarily believing) the Trinity and the Eucharist was that I kept approaching the problem with my Mormon philosophical assumptions, namely that of materialism. Mormonism is inherently materialistic and this is evidenced not only by uniquely LDS teachings (creation ex materia, supra-material spirits, etc.) but also the kinds of questions LDS typically ask of Catholics. “How could the Trinity be true? Was Jesus talking to himself in the Garden? Was Heavenly Father saying that he was pleased with himself during Christ’s baptism?” or “How could the Eucharist be literally Jesus? So if I drink his blood I won’t get drunk?” or “Why wouldn’t theosis/deification include a literal becoming a god? If we’re heirs of the Father and joint-heirs of Christ then why wouldn’t that include everything they have and are?”

These kinds of questions are only sensible coming from assumptions of philosophical materialism since materialism assumes that all phenomena ultimately are the result of interactions of matter whether its the actual matter we observe in the world or the “elastic and refined matter of spirit” that Joseph Smith taught. Using materialism as a starting point a person necessarily conflates, person with being, and substance with accident. These distinctions simply don’t exist within a materialistic framework so it isn’t at all surprising that when a materialist and an idealist come together and discuss such matters (ha! ) the materialist can’t fully grasp what the idealist is saying.

So when a Catholic says “We believe there is one Divine being that eternally exists in three Divine persons” The materalist (whether a spiritual materialist like a Mormon or a true physicalist like an atheist) hears “We believe there is one Divine thing that eternally exists in three Divine things” and then naturally starts to scratch her head Granted I don’t think I’ve ever heard a Mormon use the word “thing” and “things” when trying to honestly articulate the Dogma of the Trinity. I only used that word in order to show the consistency of the conflation of matter and spirit for the materialist.

A real example I’ve heard lots of times (and you can easily confirm this on these very boards) is that a Mormon will often say something along the lines of “So you Catholics believe God is one being who exists in three forms” implying that form is a quality of one’s person. But form is a quality of one’s being! In effect the Mormon really is saying “So you Catholics believe God is one being but also three beings?” For the materialist one’s person must be a function of one’s being and so any attempt at distinguishing the two leads to a necessary confusion.

For the materialist the accidents of an object must in some way depend on the substance of that object such that any alteration in one quality necessarily leads to a change in the other. With this assumption of course the Real Presence of the Eucharist is nonsense! How on earth could you change the entirety of the substance and yet have zero change in the accidents if one is working with materialist assumptions?

For the materialist all identity and function arises necessarily from being since there is no true distinction between being and person. The Bible says that Jesus is the only begotten son of the Father and it also says that we become adopted sons of God and thus joint-heirs with Christ. Without that distinction between being and person a materialist necessarily concludes that theosis must involve the literal evolution of our human natures into divine natures (indeed in Mormonism there isn’t even such a distinction between human and divine natures! We are all “intelligences” that have eternally existed with God and we have the exact same nature as God). For the idealist our inheriting of divinity must come from outside ourselves since we are not divine beings, we are human beings, and this inheritance is possible because beings do not inherit, rather persons do.

It wasn’t until I checked my materialism at the door and looked at it all afresh using the Catholic understanding of Aristotelian idealism that I finally began to understand (though not yet believe) the doctrines of the Trinity and the Real Presence. This is of course quite difficult to do if one is heavily grounded in their own assumption about the world (and doubly difficult for yours truly as both a Mormon and a scientist). The endeavor is, though, highly satisfying and I do encourage you to give it a try.

Brandon - This is an answer to something I’ve questioned for a very long time. How can educated, intelligent people believe the LDS claims. I get it if one is born into it, but those who convert as adults, how do they believe this is true?

 

[jane_doe]

I didn’t start seriously studying Catholicism and support for belief in the Trinity, the Real Presence and the Marian dogmas until I thoroughly rejected Mormonism came to a belief in one God and that Jesus is God due to belief in the Resurrection.

How long did you have from 1) leaving Mormonism to checking out Catholicism, and 2) checking out Catholicism to thoroughly embracing it?

I rejected Mormonism when I started seriously studying Joseph Smith and the history of the LDS church. I simply found that Joseph Smith was entirely untrustworthy so there was absolutely zero reason to believe any of his truth claims about God, the need for a restoration or anything claimed by Smith and the LDS church.

Joseph Smith and church history is a common theme for people to leave the LDS church over. Personally, the fact that they were flawed humans making very flawed decisions doesn’t really bother me (my reaction is more “no duh”). I don’t base my faith on “because Joseph Smith said so”, or because any other human said so—I have to obstinately go figure it out for myself. So I do a lot of solo study and prayer.

In all honesty, the “Plan of Salvation” was the last thing for me to give up. I always thought that it was beautiful, at least on the surface. But I had to utterly reject it because it came from Joseph Smith who was a false prophet. The Plan of Salvation does have a dark underbelly with the belief in 3 kingdoms of glory and the doctrine of polygyny…[shortened for length]…

A lot of LDS folks see the final Degrees of Glory being differentiated by address: the most righteous live here, the lesser living here, etc. But I don’t see it that way. Rather, I see a person’s final Degree of Glory being the degree of glory they have within themselves: how much do YOU reflect God? A person whom embraces God with every fiber of their being shines in a Celestial glory, being brighter than the sun, and entrusted as a joint-heir in Christ. A person whom resists God and retains some of their lesser qualities, shines with only a lesser glory, and is entrusted to a lesser degree (cause that’s all God can give). I find this belief, because the end goal of God’s plan is for us to be like Him, not to have a fancy residence.

Continuing with my own beliefs, I see no reason why two siblings should ever stop loving each other or being together, even if one is more like God than the other. I also think that our current mortal understanding of what a divine sealing is extremely poor. I sure don’t think it’s copy-paste from what we have on Earth today.

Or what about the situation of a good, faithful LDS woman who has a husband who is not a faithful LDS either because he never joins the LDS church or is LDS but doesn’t believe in it and isn’t faithful? What about that sealing (or lack thereof)? Or all the single members of the LDS church who never get married? It’s comes down to the hope that “it will all get worked out”.

My husband is not LDS. Never has been, and probably never will be. When he and I first started talking about marriage, I brought my concerns about that to the Lord. The Lord told me very distinctly that “it’ll be ok”. Well, I can’t very well argue with that, can I? So we married, and I do not fret about a sealing, even though I don’t know how things will work out. I think the Catholic phrasing for it would be that it’s a mystery of faith.

 

[jane_doe]

It wasn’t until I checked my materialism at the door and looked at it all afresh using the Catholic understanding of Aristotelian idealism that I finally began to understand (though not yet believe) the doctrines of the Trinity and the Real Presence. This is of course quite difficult to do if one is heavily grounded in their own assumption about the world (and doubly difficult for yours truly as both a Mormon and a scientist). The endeavor is, though, highly satisfying and I do encourage you to give it a try.

One of the many times I’ve tried to understand the Trinity, I went to 10 friends of various Trinitarian faiths, and asked them to explain it to me. These 10 friends gave me 16 very different answers, 0 of which made sense. That was a frustrating month…

Still, I’m stubborn and kept asking throughout the years. The most logical, useful, and spiritually-fitting answer I have received was from some who grew up Catholic. She said that the trinity was viewed as three beings, all made up of one substance (one “ousia”), and it was that substance which made Him one God. Brandon, would you say that’s in the ballpark?

 

[XuDan]

Brandon’s explanation on materialism as it has been applied to doctrinal understanding in the LDS Church is spot on. It goes further than this though and permeates the spirituality of the entire body too. The prime example is the Prosperity theology/gospel that is taught. While it is not uncommon to see it as literal as: if you tithe and have a temple recommend (implication being living righteously according to LDS theology) that God will provide opportunities for you to be comfortable in this life. I’ve even heard people tell stories of paying tithe dispute it breaking the bank for them and God provided a miracle in that they found money or something that made paying tithe actually profitable in the long run. It is actually more common to hear things like this: “If you do [X] then you get blessings.” This carrot/stick mentality never sat right with me, it sounded and felt manipulative (not to mention the point of obedience to God and His commandments) and ultimately it is what lead me to begin to question the motivations of the church. From there I began to ask questions which lead to disproportional responses and tactics. It was very disquieting. It showed me that if simply asking questions and seeking answers about things was so threatening as to generate intimidation, that I obviously had found something that merited resolution. This of course caused more study.

In the end it was my own study of the history of the LDS faith (primarily Smith, and the power struggle that happened after his death), its origins (Primary focus on the Smith’s ) and its teachings (primarily the trinity, as I have never believed God to be three separate beings forming a Godhead. I have always believed in one God, because that is what the Bible professes, but also includes, many other things to include “scriptural/revelation” instruction no longer being followed without any reason as to why, and the list goes on). It wasn’t the study of other religions that brought me to this conclusion. In fact, after reading A Marvelous Work and a Wonder during my conversion process, I was convinced of one thing: Either apostolic succession, or restoration. Protestantism was right out in either case as it would either be heresy or “a branch of a dead tree,” to coin a phrase. At this point in my life I had some very erroneous understandings of Catholicism, and was completely ignorant to the majority of it’s actual teachings. This of course was encouraged by those around me during this process. In fact, the Godhead concept was never taught in full to me until way after I was baptized. I struggled with that because I felt like I got the Bait and Switch. Anyways, during my time as LDS it wasn’t anything external that drove me away. It was the study of the church itself and the way I was treated for seeking guidance and answers. That said, even had I been treated with honesty and respect, I would have left anyways, due to the inability to reconcile the issues I had found in my research.

At the end of the day I get why the LDS church is attractive to many. It emphasizes reward, and people like to be rewarded and recognized (or made to feel special) for their actions and beliefs. Because these beliefs are different or uncommon they feel as though you have special understanding and are set apart. As a male you a priesthood holder and therefore special, you are anointed as a priest and king in heaven. It is all very appealing to the ego. It feels good to be special. God is also presented as eternally loving and not the grand vice principle we all fear will call us to his office for disciplinary action, as some denominations present God. There is a large social support structure from day one. All of this is overwhelming in how good it feels that people are willing to overlook a lot. And of course the more integrated you are into the culture leaving become a great sacrifice, one with very real consequences in your neighborhood or employment depending on where you live, not to mention your social life. Basically you’d have to start over from scratch. The complication becomes even worse if you’re married to someone who want’s to stay in the LDS church.

I don’t blame people for converting, I don’t blame them for staying. I understand what goes on and was a participant in both aspects of those. I can fully empathize with their states. It was the most arduous and painful thing I have ever endured to leave the LDS church. It took me seven years to heal to to a point where I could even explore religion again. That’s how damaging it can be, so I don’t blame those who decide to stay.

 

[XuDan]

It is interesting how people can study the same body of evidence, and reach exactly opposite conclusions.

I agree. Often I think it has to do with perspicacity. I also find it interesting how people can come from seemingly dissimilar positions and come to the same conclusions. Like the Eastern and Western Churches.

 

[jane_doe]

It was the most arduous and painful thing I have ever endured to leave the LDS church. It took me seven years to heal to to a point where I could even explore religion again.

I am glad you have found healing

 

[jane_doe]

I agree. Often I think it has to do with perspicacity. I also find it interesting how people can come from seemingly dissimilar positions and come to the same conclusions. Like the Eastern and Western Churches.

 

[XuDan]

A lot of LDS folks see the final Degrees of Glory being differentiated by address: the most righteous live here, the lesser living here, etc. But I don’t see it that way. Rather, I see a person’s final Degree of Glory being the degree of glory they have within themselves: how much do YOU reflect God? A person whom embraces God with every fiber of their being shines in a Celestial glory, being brighter than the sun, and entrusted as a joint-heir in Christ. A person whom resists God and retains some of their lesser qualities, shines with only a lesser glory, and is entrusted to a lesser degree (cause that’s all God can give). I find this belief, because the end goal of God’s plan is for us to be like Him, not to have a fancy residence.

Continuing with my own beliefs, I see no reason why two siblings should ever stop loving each other or being together, even if one is more like God than the other. I also think that our current mortal understanding of what a divine sealing is extremely poor. I sure don’t think it’s copy-paste from what we have on Earth today.

I’m curious as to how you came to this conclusion, as in your supporting evidence for it. Don’t worry, I don’t want to debate it (I understand that it is your own opinion and not the official teaching of the LDS church), I’m just interested to see what scriptures, conference talks, etc. have lead you to this conclusion. This is not a theory I’ve heard before and find it unique and thus interesting. You seem to have a lot of heterodox beliefs, and I always find these fascinating. So if you don’t mind explaining, I’d love to hear you expound.

 

[jane_doe]

I’m curious as to how you came to this conclusion, as in your supporting evidence for it. Don’t worry, I don’t want to debate it (I understand that it is your own opinion and not the official teaching of the LDS church), I’m just interested to see what scriptures, conference talks, etc. have lead you to this conclusion. This is not a theory I’ve heard before and find it unique and thus interesting. You seem to have a lot of heterodox beliefs, and I always find these fascinating. So if you don’t mind explaining, I’d love to hear you expound.

I’d love to share! It will take me a day or so to get the references together, but I most definitely will.