Let’s talk about sin of judging others

[USU78]

19 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am not imputing anything to Mormons in general. I am reflecting on my reality on this board in this and other threads and discussions I have had with some Saints in other settings over the past 30 years. On this board I have been called a son of Canaan, a follower of Baal, a wolf in sheep's clothing, an anti-Mormon, the enemy, etc. I have been told on numerous times "this is how it is, get over it." Those are some of the direct ones. The indirect ones are legion. There have also been kind folks who have tried to understand my stress and who have treated that pain with respect and empathy.

I am not trying to disagree with anyone. I am trying to describe the lonely walk of one Evangelical who is trying his best and maybe a little bit more to understand the doctrine and culture of the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There are so many mixed messages. So many "you'" statements. In doing that I do voice my observations, just like everyone else on this board. I am still however, after 18 months, hundreds of posts and an "excellent" rating, described as a "visitor" here; logically unworthy to enter into discussions because of my "other" status. It would be easier to a) walk away; or b) adopt a negative attitude that would define forever my relationship or lack there of with members of the Church. Right now I can't or won't do either. So I am stuck between being a brother in Christ and a follower of the Devil; a blasphemer; a "so-called Christian," one who can't possibly experience the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in a complete way.

I am not a straw man; I am not a caricature of every non-Mormon some Mormon has struggled against in his or her missionary journey or encountered on her way to a pageant. Nope, I am me. . . a guy trying to make sense out of the great gap, conflict, and hostility that has characterized member/non-member encounters in the 1830's, the 1850's, the 1880's, the 1910's, the 1950's, and to a degree, for other reasons, today. Each decade of conflict has had its own particular etiology. I decided to try and learn more by attending a ward. I didn't read either Walter Martin, nor the most angry Mormon apologists. I did attend an MHA gathering where Mrs. Tanner sat down beside me. I didn't even know who she was until people started greeting her! Don't blame me for that. 🙂 I have tried to get to know and understand the folks in our ward, the folks in the church history community (wonderful people), stake presidents, and yes, the folks here on this forum. I have never in my years of ministry tried to convert a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to anything. Because they are already Christians saved by God's grace and faith in the atonement. My journey is a lonely walk. I hope to continue it a little while longer. 

This is an odd place, to be sure.  I've been banned from a couple of my own (and other) threads because I have a couple of tattle-tale stalkers.

It happens.  It certainly irritates when it happens, and often I get fed up and disappear for weeks (sometimes months) at a time.  But there's value here.

My problem is of my own making, or at least my family's making.  My wife calls it the "truth-speaker syndrome."  I call it the Cassandra Effect.  I am doomed to be always right, but never believed, and to have my heart misjudged because of my bluntness.  Bluntness and directness are especially disfavored hereabouts.  I'm an old meanie, you see.

Now, as to your issues, there are a whole lot of snide false flag posters who show up and have shown up hereabouts, claiming to be one thing.  A lot have been ministry students trying out their wings after taking cultbusting classes at Liberty or SMU or TCU or such.  And there have been monstrous betrayals by some of these false flag folk.  You arrive here not in a vacuum, but as part of a tapestry of types who come and go.  Using particular words and phrases, addressing particular issues in particular ways, places you within the tapestry as a type.  "Here we go again," is going through a lot of minds.  And you are mistrusted, as I am misjudged.  

I am sympathetic to your position here, but see no solution.  The well's been poisoned by bad guys, you see.  An enemy hath done this.

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, alter idem said:

I think one reason you feel uncomfortable attending your ward is that you harbor some expectations that are causing some trouble.  There's no question you can be welcome and comfortable in a ward even though you are not baptized members--plenty of people do fit this and they are accepted and feel welcomed--even attending their same ward for decades, never accepting baptism; but there is an unspoken understanding that while the person wants to fellowship with the Saints, they don't want to make the eternal commitment to join them through Baptism into the CofJCofLDS.   That's how I see you--you don't want to be baptized into the CofJC, but you want to be accepted as a full-fledged member, and you have preconceived notions, due to your past experiences with other Christian churches that this is how it should be.  The problem is, it's just not the same for the CoJC, because of our claims of being the 'Only true and living church on the earth' (D&C 1) and our claims of divine Priesthood Power and Authority, which we believe and teach all other churches lack.  We don't deny that members of other churches can enjoy the spirit to teach and bless them, but we do teach and believe that since other churches' baptisms are not performed by someone holding true priesthood authority, they cannot bestow the RIGHT to have the Holy Ghost to be with them always and lack the real binding covenant on earth and in heaven that they have taken upon them the Name of Christ.  That is the reason we cannot accept other churches' baptisms as binding and valid.  And that is why we perform Baptism by proxy for the dead.  We believe, for baptism to be binding and valid in Heaven and on earth, it must be performed for a person who is prepared and willing to accept this ordinance and it is performed in the proper manner, by one having authority.

Navidad, you say you 'have no objection to being rebaptised for membership purposes', however  you 'cannot accept it (baptism) as a pre-condition for salvific purposes' and this is why you simply aren't prepared or willing to accept baptism into the JofCJofLDS, because you lack a testimony, a conviction of our truth claims.  You don't believe them or understand them. You reject them, in favor of your own traditions/beleifs.  And, that's fine if you just want to attend our meetings and socialize with our members.  But I agree with your Bishop, you shouldn't be teaching classes (if it's alright in the handbook to do so)(except to teach most of the Nursery lessons, since most of them are basic Christian teachings you do have a testimony of), because you reject a basic foundational tenet of our faith, you have your own set of beliefs on Priesthood Authority and Baptism and they are in contradiction to what our church teaches.  Does that makes sense?  I'm certain that they welcome your desire to help out and fellowship with them, but they would be foolish to ask you to teach religious lessons or preach when you have your own religious beliefs which reject some of the fundamental doctrines of the CofJC.  I hope you won't take offense at that, but accept that it is as it should be.  Personally, I'd enjoy having ward members like you and your wife who want to participate and socialize--and I hope you can understand and cut your ward some slack for them not giving you and your wife opportunities to teach and preach in the religious church setting.

Hi - thanks for your reply. Might I share with you a file of the Sacrament talk I gave last year in our ward? Might you be willing to read it and then share with me what therein is a teaching that you would find offensive since it is taught by a non-member? What in my lesson is contrary to a core LDS tenet? I suppose this was the equivalent of "preaching" that you refer to since it was in a sacrament meeting? What is in contradiction to what "your Church" teaches? You ask me "does that make sense?" Sure it does, if you find something in what I have taught that is in "contradiction to what your church teaches." As you read (I hope you and others will) please understand that we worship in a historic old ward in the Mormon Mexican Colonies. It was given on a Father's Day Sunday. It might help you understand the context of my Sacrament talk. I would appreciate your thinking after you read it. Thanks so much. 

Sacrament Talk.docx

Edited March 27, 2019 by Navidad

[Navidad]

44 minutes ago, USU78 said:

This is an odd place, to be sure.  I've been banned from a couple of my own (and other) threads because I have a couple of tattle-tale stalkers.

It happens.  It certainly irritates when it happens, and often I get fed up and disappear for weeks (sometimes months) at a time.  But there's value here.

My problem is of my own making, or at least my family's making.  My wife calls it the "truth-speaker syndrome."  I call it the Cassandra Effect.  I am doomed to be always right, but never believed, and to have my heart misjudged because of my bluntness.  Bluntness and directness are especially disfavored hereabouts.  I'm an old meanie, you see.

Now, as to your issues, there are a whole lot of snide false flag posters who show up and have shown up hereabouts, claiming to be one thing.  A lot have been ministry students trying out their wings after taking cultbusting classes at Liberty or SMU or TCU or such.  And there have been monstrous betrayals by some of these false flag folk.  You arrive here not in a vacuum, but as part of a tapestry of types who come and go.  Using particular words and phrases, addressing particular issues in particular ways, places you within the tapestry as a type.  "Here we go again," is going through a lot of minds.  And you are mistrusted, as I am misjudged.  

I am sympathetic to your position here, but see no solution.  The well's been poisoned by bad guys, you see.  An enemy hath done this.

Very well said. I am also sure that on occasion I have poisoned my own well here. I have gotten irritated and sounded off with the best sounder-offers on this thread. Those situations were my fault. I have seen some of your false flag posters come on the forum in my 18 months here. I take great pride in helping to chase them off and believe I have effectively, on occasion done so! I speak in a lot of evangelical settings and there aren't too many cultbusting classes, as you call them any more. There may be so at fundamentalist places. Certainly SMU and TCU aren't in that camp and Liberty has consistently moved in the past decades from fundamentalist to Evangelical (capital E). I arrived here in August 2017 so hopefully some day, some year, or some decade I will be able to loose the thread on the tapestry you so accurately describe.

[alter idem]

19 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hi - thanks for your reply. Might I share with you a file of the Sacrament talk I gave last year in our ward? Might you be willing to read it and then share with me what therein is a teaching that you would find offensive since it is taught by a non-member? What in my lesson is contrary to a core LDS tenet? I suppose this was the equivalent of "preaching" that you refer to since it was in a sacrament meeting? What is in contradiction to what "your Church" teaches? You ask me "does that make sense?" Sure it does, if you find something in what I have taught that is in "contradiction to what your church teaches." As you read (I hope you and others will) please understand that we worship in a historic old ward in the Mormon Mexican Colonies. It was given on a Father's Day Sunday. It might help you understand the context of my Sacrament talk. I would appreciate your thinking after you read it. Thanks so much. 

Sacrament Talk.docx 24.09 kB · 0 downloads

Thanks for sharing this talk, isn't it wonderful that the ward invited you to speak and share your extensive knowledge of their history!!  They were really blessed by this.

I really enjoyed the talk and learned some things that were very interesting.  I think I'll do a little more research on that time period and the Mexican Revolution.

So, you asked if there was anything in the talk that I might find 'offensive since it was taught by a non-member'?  No, I didn't, and that's why non-members are sometimes invited to speak in our Sacrament meetings, if the Bishop feels so inspired.  However, from what you shared about your past in your talk, it is absolutely clear that you believe your Mennonite faith is true, you have faith in the laying on of hands and anointings you received in your faith and you are justifiably proud of your service to your faith. If you have faith and a testimony that this was done by the power of God, does it really matter if others don't share your belief? You know enough about the CofJC to know that we claim the Only Priesthood Authority restored by God on earth--we preach that Priesthood Authority was lost 2,000 years ago and restored by Joseph Smith Jr.  So, I understand you taking offense at our doctrine, but as I see it, the only way to placate you is drop our claims to exclusive Priesthood Authority.  As I said, it's just not going to happen, because it's a basic foundational tenet of our faith.  We wouldn't be the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints if we no longer make this claim, drop our claim of a Prophet, 12 Apostles, binding priesthood ordinances etc.  If we did this, then we really would be just another 'branch' of the tree of Christianity, as you said.

You ended your talk with this statement;

"I testify that I believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a true and living branch of the tree of Christianity, one that has borne fruit for the Savior for parts of three centuries "

Here's the problem.

We don't believe or preach that we are a 'branch' , we believe we're more like the 'trunk'.  If you believe we aren't any different than any other church, then you can't testify to our truthclaims--not even to say 'I believe' instead of 'I know', as a teacher in a class.  I don't think many would want to be taught by a teacher who says; 'I don't believe' to one of THE foundational doctrines of our faith, no matter how thoughtful, knowledgeable or entertaining they are.

So, I hope you can acknowledge that some of what offends you are doctrines which can never be changed, they aren't meant to offend, (this doctrine can be found stated by the Lord Jesus Christ himself in our Doctrine and Covenants 1:30 where he calls it; 'the only true and living Church upon the face of the whole earth') they just are what they are.  The doctrine of Priesthood Authority restored to earth is another one that is non-negotiable and cannot be denounced to smooth feelings of members of others faiths.   I think if you'll be honest with your ward members that you have a testimony of your own Mennonite faith, you believe your baptism was valid and you don't believe that you must be baptized into the CofJC to be saved, but you like other aspects of the church's faith and enjoy the fellowship with members, they'll accept you and not expect anything more--maybe then you and your wife can just enjoy yourselves as members of the congregation of 'saints' with no expectations.

I think if you change your expectations and you are honest with members of the ward, so they change their expectations of you, this can work out and you all can enjoy worshipping together.

[HappyJackWagon]

37 minutes ago, alter idem said:

Thanks for sharing this talk, isn't it wonderful that the ward invited you to speak and share your extensive knowledge of their history!!  They were really blessed by this.

I really enjoyed the talk and learned some things that were very interesting.  I think I'll do a little more research on that time period and the Mexican Revolution.

So, you asked if there was anything in the talk that I might find 'offensive since it was taught by a non-member'?  No, I didn't, and that's why non-members are sometimes invited to speak in our Sacrament meetings, if the Bishop feels so inspired.  However, from what you shared about your past in your talk, it is absolutely clear that you believe your Mennonite faith is true, you have faith in the laying on of hands and anointings you received in your faith and you are justifiably proud of your service to your faith. If you have faith and a testimony that this was done by the power of God, does it really matter if others don't share your belief? You know enough about the CofJC to know that we claim the Only Priesthood Authority restored by God on earth--we preach that Priesthood Authority was lost 2,000 years ago and restored by Joseph Smith Jr.  So, I understand you taking offense at our doctrine, but as I see it, the only way to placate you is drop our claims to exclusive Priesthood Authority.  As I said, it's just not going to happen, because it's a basic foundational tenet of our faith.  We wouldn't be the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints if we no longer make this claim, drop our claim of a Prophet, 12 Apostles, binding priesthood ordinances etc.  If we did this, then we really would be just another 'branch' of the tree of Christianity, as you said.

You ended your talk with this statement;

"I testify that I believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a true and living branch of the tree of Christianity, one that has borne fruit for the Savior for parts of three centuries "

Here's the problem.

We don't believe or preach that we are a 'branch' , we believe we're more like the 'trunk'.  If you believe we aren't any different than any other church, then you can't testify to our truthclaims--not even to say 'I believe' instead of 'I know', as a teacher in a class.  I don't think many would want to be taught by a teacher who says; 'I don't believe' to one of THE foundational doctrines of our faith, no matter how thoughtful, knowledgeable or entertaining they are.

So, I hope you can acknowledge that some of what offends you are doctrines which can never be changed, they aren't meant to offend, (this doctrine can be found stated by the Lord Jesus Christ himself in our Doctrine and Covenants 1:30 where he calls it; 'the only true and living Church upon the face of the whole earth') they just are what they are.  The doctrine of Priesthood Authority restored to earth is another one that is non-negotiable and cannot be denounced to smooth feelings of members of others faiths.   I think if you'll be honest with your ward members that you have a testimony of your own Mennonite faith, you believe your baptism was valid and you don't believe that you must be baptized into the CofJC to be saved, but you like other aspects of the church's faith and enjoy the fellowship with members, they'll accept you and not expect anything more--maybe then you and your wife can just enjoy yourselves as members of the congregation of 'saints' with no expectations.

I think if you change your expectations and you are honest with members of the ward, so they change their expectations of you, this can work out and you all can enjoy worshipping together.

IMO- Christ would be the trunk.

If we follow the metaphor of the body of Christ, the Church (or at least many members) tends to think it is the entire body. We've had that discussion on this board a number of times and it frustrates me every time because it is the epitome of arrogance to think that one church has the monopoly on Christianity. It is arrogant if/when the Catholics say it, it's arrogant if/when the protestants say it, and it's arrogant when Mormons say it. We are all PART of the body of Christ. We may have different roles, different gifts etc, but declaring one to be greater than the other seems to miss the entire point of the Body of Christ.

[alter idem]

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

IMO- Christ would be the trunk.

If we follow the metaphor of the body of Christ, the Church (or at least many members) tends to think it is the entire body. We've had that discussion on this board a number of times and it frustrates me every time because it is the epitome of arrogance to think that one church has the monopoly on Christianity. It is arrogant if/when the Catholics say it, it's arrogant if/when the protestants say it, and it's arrogant when Mormons say it. We are all PART of the body of Christ. We may have different roles, different gifts etc, but declaring one to be greater than the other seems to miss the entire point of the Body of Christ.

Yes, the metaphor works to refer to Christ as the 'trunk', but that wasn't what he was referring to, as I read his statement within the context of his talk. 

I don't think the CofJCofLDS thinks we have a 'monopoly on Christianity', we recognize we are one of many Christian churches, but we obviously believe there are some very real, valid reasons we are different as well.  I'm not disagreeing with you that we are part of the body of Christ, as Christians, but I believe as taught in the New Testament, the plan was for there to be 'one faith, one Lord and one Baptism'--that was the intention when Christ came at the Meridian of time and then again when he appeared to Joseph Smith jr. in the Sacred Grove.  As per the CofJCofLDS, the Lord did not want his church watered down or corrupted and changed, with different churches calling 'lo here and lo there'.  Why would he want those who he calls to 'follow him' to be fractured into numerous different faiths?  The Lord's church which he set up was corrupted during the apostasy and turned into many branches of Christianity (as I read Navidad's meaning of what he said in his talk)--that's what happened, but not what was desired. 

You dismiss this belief as 'arrogant', but those who have a witness of this gospel recognize it as truth. And I'd suggest the same goes for those of other religions who believe they are the True church on earth. Shouldn't they believe this? Why would anyone waste their time in a church they thought was false or corrupted or didn't enjoy God's approval?  IMO, it's not arrogance, it's simply common sense.  If it offends you, I'm sorry you are offended, but the claim is not made out of malice.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, alter idem said:

Yes, the metaphor works to refer to Christ as the 'trunk', but that wasn't what he was referring to, as I read his statement within the context of his talk. 

I don't think the CofJCofLDS thinks we have a 'monopoly on Christianity', we recognize we are one of many Christian churches, but we obviously believe there are some very real, valid reasons we are different as well.  I'm not disagreeing with you that we are part of the body of Christ, as Christians, but I believe as taught in the New Testament, the plan was for there to be 'one faith, one Lord and one Baptism'--that was the intention when Christ came at the Meridian of time and then again when he appeared to Joseph Smith jr. in the Sacred Grove.  As per the CofJCofLDS, the Lord did not want his church watered down or corrupted and changed, with different churches calling 'lo here and lo there'.  Why would he want those who he calls to 'follow him' to be fractured into numerous different faiths?  The Lord's church which he set up was corrupted during the apostasy and turned into many branches of Christianity (as I read Navidad's meaning of what he said in his talk)--that's what happened, but not what was desired. 

You dismiss this belief as 'arrogant', but those who have a witness of this gospel recognize it as truth. And I'd suggest the same goes for those of other religions who believe they are the True church on earth. Shouldn't they believe this? Why would anyone waste their time in a church they thought was false or corrupted or didn't enjoy God's approval?  IMO, it's not arrogance, it's simply common sense.  If it offends you, I'm sorry you are offended, but the claim is not made out of malice.

 

The arrogance is illustrated in the attitude that there is only ONE church that enjoys God's approval. Like I said before, it is arrogant for any church to feel they are of God while all others are not. It is the epitome of judging others. IMO God is pleased by all who gather as they try to follow him. God is pleased with the faithful Evangelical/Catholic/Methodist etc. every bit as much as he is with the faithful Mormon. Of course it's ok for us to disagree.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The arrogance is illustrated in the attitude that there is only ONE church that enjoys God's approval. Like I said before, it is arrogant for any church to feel they are of God while all others are not. It is the epitome of judging others. IMO God is pleased by all who gather as they try to follow him. God is pleased with the faithful Evangelical/Catholic/Methodist etc. every bit as much as he is with the faithful Mormon. Of course it's ok for us to disagree.

If it's true, I don't think it qualifies as arrogant. 

It's an interesting point though.  In your opinion, what is the difference between believing that there is only one church which Christ calls His, and believing that there is only one God that you must believe in to get to Heaven?  For example, is it arrogant for a Christian to believe that all Hindus and Muslims will have to accept Christ as the Savior before they will have access to His grace?  

[Tacenda]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The arrogance is illustrated in the attitude that there is only ONE church that enjoys God's approval. Like I said before, it is arrogant for any church to feel they are of God while all others are not. It is the epitome of judging others. IMO God is pleased by all who gather as they try to follow him. God is pleased with the faithful Evangelical/Catholic/Methodist etc. every bit as much as he is with the faithful Mormon. Of course it's ok for us to disagree.

And if the church is the one true church the world is going to be in a world of hurt if they can't return to God since it's numbers are miniscule. Or LDS are going to be working for a good portion of their eternity to save them. Which was really the Saviour's job.

Edited March 28, 2019 by Tacenda

[USU78]

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The arrogance is illustrated in the attitude that there is only ONE church that enjoys God's approval. Like I said before, it is arrogant for any church to feel they are of God while all others are not. It is the epitome of judging others. IMO God is pleased by all who gather as they try to follow him. God is pleased with the faithful Evangelical/Catholic/Methodist etc. every bit as much as he is with the faithful Mormon. Of course it's ok for us to disagree.

Since both you and I lack a G-d's-eye-view perspective, neither of us is capable of judging whether the One-True-Church claim is accurate from G-d's perspective, let alone judging the alleged arrogance of those believing in and advocating for the claim.  Accordingly, you are not in a position of calling anybody arrogant.

[USU78]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And if the church is the one true church the world is going to be in a world of hurt if they can't return to God since it's numbers are miniscule. Or LDS are going to be working for a good portion of their eternity to save them. Which was really the Saviour's job.

Isn't it great that He clarified things, pointing out that, though the work was great and the laborers few, He was deputizing those few to aid Him in doing His job?

[esodije]

When works are given primacy in the spectrum of things, it’s practically inevitable that we will judge others on that basis—and in an absolute sense, not in a relative one (cf. Parable of the Talents). In my observations, the church walks a fine line between sounding too encouraging (and fostering complacency) and sounding too discouraging (and fostering despair). More than once in my life, I’ve concluded that I was headed to the Terrestrial Kingdom, no matter what I did or didn’t do, so what was the point in trying? Lately I’ve been trying to find solace in D&C 132:26, which suggests that a sinner who’s been sealed to a spouse can still be exalted after being destroyed in the flesh and delivered up to the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption. (I already feel like I’m being destroyed in the flesh!) The contradiction is that I have a low opinion of plural marriage, so it seems odd for me to try to find reassurance in Section 132.

Edited March 28, 2019 by esodije

[alter idem]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The arrogance is illustrated in the attitude that there is only ONE church that enjoys God's approval. Like I said before, it is arrogant for any church to feel they are of God while all others are not. It is the epitome of judging others. IMO God is pleased by all who gather as they try to follow him. God is pleased with the faithful Evangelical/Catholic/Methodist etc. every bit as much as he is with the faithful Mormon. Of course it's ok for us to disagree.

I'm not sure what your religion is, I assume you are CofJCofLDS, and if so, you are aware of what the Lord told Joseph Smith when he appeared to him in the Sacred Grove.  Joseph asked about the many religions (as this was his reason for praying in the first place and he described it thus in Joseph Smith history 1:18;

Quote

I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

20 He again forbade me to join with any of them;

Since the Lord said it, and he is perfect, then I don't consider it 'arrogant' judging or 'offensive'--I read it as him simply stating fact.  He is God after all; I think he knows what is truth and what is error. The Lord is forcefully condemning all false religions, period, in our scriptures--and this evidence of why we preach the doctrine that we are the Only True and Living  Church on the Earth.  If we offend others in this, I'm sorry about that, but I don't think we should reject revealed truths our Lord has spoken in our scriptures.  I don't think he'll excuse us or look kindly at our ignoring or rejecting what he's told us because we didn't want to 'offend' others.  That didn't seem to be a big concern of his during his ministry on earth.  If someone needed to be called out, he did it and did not flinch.

But, it should be noted that in this scripture, the Lord does not condemn good, faithful members of other faiths who sincerely trust and believe their religions and try to live them as they've been taught-- I believe that is the standard for which they will be judged in the next life. So, while he doesn't condemn righteous members of the churches you named, the Lord absolutely condemns their false creeds and false leaders who corrupt his truths within these churches.  As members of the CoJCofLDS, I don't see how we can believe otherwise or pretend that other churches can be just as true as ours.  The Lord himself told us otherwise, very clearly and with no ambiguity.  He strongly condemned those churches as false and he clearly was not pleased with the many churches which existed when Joseph prayed to know which church was true and was told to join none of them. 

[alter idem]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

And if the church is the one true church the world is going to be in a world of hurt if they can't return to God since it's numbers are miniscule. Or LDS are going to be working for a good portion of their eternity to save them. Which was really the Saviour's job.

I'm not sure if I read you right, but if you think that IF this really is the Lord's true church, then we should have more members... well, that's not how it will be.

In 1 Ne 14:12  we read this;

Quote

And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were few, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon all the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw.

So, how I read this prophecy is that we should expect that the faithful Saints and members of the Lord's church will always be a small number, but the hope is that we will have small pockets of members all over the world.  I don't think the Lord will condemn us if we continue to try to follow his commandment to preach the Gospel to all the world and yet, few accept it.  It is an invitation we share-- and all have agency.  They can accept or reject, that is not on us, but our charge is to offer the invitation to all we can.

And to clarify,  we don't 'save' them, the Savior does that, through his atonement.  We are charged with offering them saving ordinances and completing those ordinances as is required, here on earth.  However, the saving ordinances must be made effectual, by the individual being justified and sanctified through accepting the sacrifice and blood shed by the Lord Jesus Christ.

Edited March 28, 2019 by alter idem

[Calm]

23 hours ago, Tacenda said:

And if the church is the one true church the world is going to be in a world of hurt if they can't return to God since it's numbers are miniscule. Or LDS are going to be working for a good portion of their eternity to save them. 

Not really.  A friend once calculated how long it would take to do the work of everyone on earth given temples working 24/5 with iirc 1000 temples of average size running at maximum capacity (which is a reasonable assumption for the Millennium as we currently understand it).  Only took a couple hundred years.

Quote

Which was really the Saviour's job.

Did Christ baptize all who came to him or allow his disciples to do so?

John 4

Quote

4 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,

2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

 

Edited March 29, 2019 by Calm

[Navidad]

On 3/28/2019 at 8:54 AM, alter idem said:

Thanks for sharing this talk, isn't it wonderful that the ward invited you to speak and share your extensive knowledge of their history!!  They were really blessed by this.

I really enjoyed the talk and learned some things that were very interesting.  I think I'll do a little more research on that time period and the Mexican Revolution.

So, you asked if there was anything in the talk that I might find 'offensive since it was taught by a non-member'?  No, I didn't, and that's why non-members are sometimes invited to speak in our Sacrament meetings, if the Bishop feels so inspired.  However, from what you shared about your past in your talk, it is absolutely clear that you believe your Mennonite faith is true, you have faith in the laying on of hands and anointings you received in your faith and you are justifiably proud of your service to your faith. If you have faith and a testimony that this was done by the power of God, does it really matter if others don't share your belief? You know enough about the CofJC to know that we claim the Only Priesthood Authority restored by God on earth--we preach that Priesthood Authority was lost 2,000 years ago and restored by Joseph Smith Jr.  So, I understand you taking offense at our doctrine, but as I see it, the only way to placate you is drop our claims to exclusive Priesthood Authority.  As I said, it's just not going to happen, because it's a basic foundational tenet of our faith.  We wouldn't be the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints if we no longer make this claim, drop our claim of a Prophet, 12 Apostles, binding priesthood ordinances etc.  If we did this, then we really would be just another 'branch' of the tree of Christianity, as you said.

You ended your talk with this statement;

"I testify that I believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a true and living branch of the tree of Christianity, one that has borne fruit for the Savior for parts of three centuries "

Here's the problem.

We don't believe or preach that we are a 'branch' , we believe we're more like the 'trunk'.  If you believe we aren't any different than any other church, then you can't testify to our truthclaims--not even to say 'I believe' instead of 'I know', as a teacher in a class.  I don't think many would want to be taught by a teacher who says; 'I don't believe' to one of THE foundational doctrines of our faith, no matter how thoughtful, knowledgeable or entertaining they are.

So, I hope you can acknowledge that some of what offends you are doctrines which can never be changed, they aren't meant to offend, (this doctrine can be found stated by the Lord Jesus Christ himself in our Doctrine and Covenants 1:30 where he calls it; 'the only true and living Church upon the face of the whole earth') they just are what they are.  The doctrine of Priesthood Authority restored to earth is another one that is non-negotiable and cannot be denounced to smooth feelings of members of others faiths.   I think if you'll be honest with your ward members that you have a testimony of your own Mennonite faith, you believe your baptism was valid and you don't believe that you must be baptized into the CofJC to be saved, but you like other aspects of the church's faith and enjoy the fellowship with members, they'll accept you and not expect anything more--maybe then you and your wife can just enjoy yourselves as members of the congregation of 'saints' with no expectations.

I think if you change your expectations and you are honest with members of the ward, so they change their expectations of you, this can work out and you all can enjoy worshipping together.

I have been traveling and speaking the last few days so I am way behind in posting. That is probably a relief to some of you! Ha! I am appreciative of the fact that you enjoyed the Sacrament talk. BTW, the study of the Mormon Mexican colonies (they still call them that) during the revolution is a fascinating subject. If I may be so bold and arrogant, I highly recommend my article on the same in the Summer 2018 edition of the MHA Journal. I will be speaking in SLC this June on the Apostles in the Colonies. I hope to meet some of you in person there!

You ask a very important question in your reply. "Does it really matter if others don't share my belief?" I am not 100% sure what you are asking. My attempt at an answer is as follows - it doesn't matter if other don't share my beliefs - that is certainly correct. I don't know of anyone who exactly shares all my beliefs. What matters is when they deny my experience. I hope that is a distinction that makes sense to you. If as one person on this forum recently wrote about the Saints "We do have exclusive access to the fullness of that grace that leads to a fulness of happiness," then my experiences of God's presence, grace, etc. must be delusional on my part. Certainly that matters. This exclusive business on the part of Saints obviously does matter to me a lot. Elijah complained that he was the only one left serving God. God had to remind him otherwise. I can't reconcile this belief in exclusiveness with my own experience with the Lord. I absolutely believe that my LDS friends know the grace of of God that leads to the fullness of happiness. But they deny me that because they are the only "custodians of the keys of God's grace" as another Saint recently told me. I don't have the key so I am left out until I experience LDS baptism and confirmation. You, yourself assure me that you claim "exclusive Priesthood Authority as a basic foundational tenet of your faith." There is that exclusivity again. I will respond to the priesthood authority concept in another response; otherwise this one will get too long. Let me assure you I believe in priesthood authority.

As someone has said, the Bible is clear that Christ is the trunk of the tree of Christianity. He is the vine we are the branches. That isn’t my word. It is His. We all are part of the tree of Christianity, rooted and founded in Christ. Our mutual faith is Christianity. Our group identification within Christianity is what often divides us. That is so unfortunate. We have much more in common than we have in difference. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is one branch of the Christian tree. I know of no other way to put it? One branch of the Christian family. One tree in the Christian orchard. I am not sure how else to put it. I recently read a survey of Saints that appeared in the Dialogue Journal. One of its finding was that only 57% of Saints believe their Church is the only true and living church. It may be a foundational tenet, but it seems that the percentage of faithful Saints who personally believe that may be declining. You mention doctrines that can never be changed. Hmmm. Lots of lots of LDS doctrines have changed over the years, and some pretty big ones at that. In 1924 for example, a committee headed by Elder Talmage removed the Lectures on Faith (the Doctrine part ) from the Doctrine and Covenants. Why? Because they contained aspects of early Church doctrine on major issues that were no longer that which was taught in 1924. It is my personal belief that if the Church dropped its “only” claim, it would indeed still be the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and would experience a sudden and extensive growth. Obviously,  that is just my opinion. In a Church that prides itself on on-going revelation, who knows what will happen in the future? Certainly, the Mennonite Church has also changed a whole lot since I was a boy. Nothing wrong with change as long as it is not for the sake of something that is displeasing to the Lord.

I have gone on too long. My testimony at the end of that talk was my own. It too has evolved and changed over the years. It will continue to evolve and change. That is a good thing and I look forward to it.

Edited March 29, 2019 by Navidad

[Navidad]

On 3/28/2019 at 8:54 AM, alter idem said:

Thanks for sharing this talk, isn't it wonderful that the ward invited you to speak and share your extensive knowledge of their history!!  They were really blessed by this.

I really enjoyed the talk and learned some things that were very interesting.  I think I'll do a little more research on that time period and the Mexican Revolution.

So, you asked if there was anything in the talk that I might find 'offensive since it was taught by a non-member'?  No, I didn't, and that's why non-members are sometimes invited to speak in our Sacrament meetings, if the Bishop feels so inspired.  However, from what you shared about your past in your talk, it is absolutely clear that you believe your Mennonite faith is true, you have faith in the laying on of hands and anointings you received in your faith and you are justifiably proud of your service to your faith. If you have faith and a testimony that this was done by the power of God, does it really matter if others don't share your belief? You know enough about the CofJC to know that we claim the Only Priesthood Authority restored by God on earth--we preach that Priesthood Authority was lost 2,000 years ago and restored by Joseph Smith Jr.  So, I understand you taking offense at our doctrine, but as I see it, the only way to placate you is drop our claims to exclusive Priesthood Authority.  As I said, it's just not going to happen, because it's a basic foundational tenet of our faith.  We wouldn't be the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints if we no longer make this claim, drop our claim of a Prophet, 12 Apostles, binding priesthood ordinances etc.  If we did this, then we really would be just another 'branch' of the tree of Christianity, as you said.

You ended your talk with this statement;

"I testify that I believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a true and living branch of the tree of Christianity, one that has borne fruit for the Savior for parts of three centuries "

Here's the problem.

We don't believe or preach that we are a 'branch' , we believe we're more like the 'trunk'.  If you believe we aren't any different than any other church, then you can't testify to our truthclaims--not even to say 'I believe' instead of 'I know', as a teacher in a class.  I don't think many would want to be taught by a teacher who says; 'I don't believe' to one of THE foundational doctrines of our faith, no matter how thoughtful, knowledgeable or entertaining they are.

So, I hope you can acknowledge that some of what offends you are doctrines which can never be changed, they aren't meant to offend, (this doctrine can be found stated by the Lord Jesus Christ himself in our Doctrine and Covenants 1:30 where he calls it; 'the only true and living Church upon the face of the whole earth') they just are what they are.  The doctrine of Priesthood Authority restored to earth is another one that is non-negotiable and cannot be denounced to smooth feelings of members of others faiths.   I think if you'll be honest with your ward members that you have a testimony of your own Mennonite faith, you believe your baptism was valid and you don't believe that you must be baptized into the CofJC to be saved, but you like other aspects of the church's faith and enjoy the fellowship with members, they'll accept you and not expect anything more--maybe then you and your wife can just enjoy yourselves as members of the congregation of 'saints' with no expectations.

I think if you change your expectations and you are honest with members of the ward, so they change their expectations of you, this can work out and you all can enjoy worshipping together.

 

Edited March 29, 2019 by Navidad

[Navidad]

23 hours ago, alter idem said:

Yes, the metaphor works to refer to Christ as the 'trunk', but that wasn't what he was referring to, as I read his statement within the context of his talk. 

I don't think the CofJCofLDS thinks we have a 'monopoly on Christianity', we recognize we are one of many Christian churches, but we obviously believe there are some very real, valid reasons we are different as well.  I'm not disagreeing with you that we are part of the body of Christ, as Christians, but I believe as taught in the New Testament, the plan was for there to be 'one faith, one Lord and one Baptism'--that was the intention when Christ came at the Meridian of time and then again when he appeared to Joseph Smith jr. in the Sacred Grove.  As per the CofJCofLDS, the Lord did not want his church watered down or corrupted and changed, with different churches calling 'lo here and lo there'.  Why would he want those who he calls to 'follow him' to be fractured into numerous different faiths?  The Lord's church which he set up was corrupted during the apostasy and turned into many branches of Christianity (as I read Navidad's meaning of what he said in his talk)--that's what happened, but not what was desired. 

You dismiss this belief as 'arrogant', but those who have a witness of this gospel recognize it as truth. And I'd suggest the same goes for those of other religions who believe they are the True church on earth. Shouldn't they believe this? Why would anyone waste their time in a church they thought was false or corrupted or didn't enjoy God's approval?  IMO, it's not arrogance, it's simply common sense.  If it offends you, I'm sorry you are offended, but the claim is not made out of malice.

 

I don't know of any other Christian groups, other than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who believe they are the "True church on earth" to the exclusion of all others, the custodians of the keys to God's grace and those who have exclusive access to the fullness of that grace that leads to a fulness of happiness." We have had this debate and certainly there are those on this forum who disagree with me. Some state that is what Catholics believe. That is not my experience or understanding of their doctrine. They accept my baptism for membership and don't doubt my salvation and eternal life, even in the absence of Catholic baptism and confirmation.  I know of no other group that says only their baptism starts the salvation/exaltation process and that all others are blasphemy like President Kimball taught. I agree with you that the LDS claim to exclusivity is not made out of malice. That would be grossly unfair to the wonderful Saints I have met. I do confess however that I really struggle however to figure out what it is made out of . . . I know the claim is in D&C 1: 30 but I still wonder if the second half of that verse which is never quoted might hold a clue to a different interpretation? The verse in its entirety states: "And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually."

God says he is speaking to "the church collectively and not individually." Is it not reasonable to interpret this phrase as that He is speaking unto the collective Christian church when he states it is the only true and living church?  What else would prompt the contrast between the individual church that He is not speaking to, and the collective church he says he is speaking to? What is the meaning of the term "church collectively" if not the Christian Church? It makes no sense that the individual church refers to a single little ward.

Anyway, I very much appreciate this discussion. It is a good one. I hope it makes us all think. I like that. 

[Navidad]

23 hours ago, bluebell said:

If it's true, I don't think it qualifies as arrogant. 

It's an interesting point though.  In your opinion, what is the difference between believing that there is only one church which Christ calls His, and believing that there is only one God that you must believe in to get to Heaven?  For example, is it arrogant for a Christian to believe that all Hindus and Muslims will have to accept Christ as the Savior before they will have access to His grace?  

Hi Bluebell. I believe the answer to your last question is yes. It is a form of arrogance to believe that. I have no knowledge of what the eternal destiny of "all Hindus and Muslims" will be, especially those who never heard of Christ or the Christian gospel. Those are very significant questions. God will grant access to His grace for eternity to whomever He will. I would never presume to pre-judge who that may or may not be. I do believe it will not be group by group, but individual by individual. 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Navidad said:

Hi Bluebell. I believe the answer to your last question is yes. It is a form of arrogance to believe that. I have no knowledge of what the eternal destiny of "all Hindus and Muslims" will be, especially those who never heard of Christ or the Christian gospel. Those are very significant questions. God will grant access to His grace for eternity to whomever He will. I would never presume to pre-judge who that may or may not be. I do believe it will not be group by group, but individual by individual. 

I can respect that.  I personally believe the bible on this topic and think that you are wrong but I understand that others don't.  I do think it's important to remember though that believing that no one can access 'heaven' without going through Christ does not mean that anyone but Christ is judging non-Christians.  

Christ is able to be merciful and fair while still being the only name wherein we can be saved.   

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, Navidad said:

They accept my baptism for membership and don't doubt my salvation and eternal life, even in the absence of Catholic baptism and confirmation

My understanding is they accept the baptism as Catholic because it follows the same form they authorized.  They don't require authority to baptize, but proper form and understanding, though not belief iirc (thus an atheist who understood it could perform a valid blessing if he used the correct form and intent).  I remember reading a story of trying to determine if a young Catholic child's baptism of his baby sister was valid due to whether he understood it properly.  I think they decided to redo it just in case, but I could be wrong.

Any Catholic knowing I am wrong, please speak up.

Edited March 29, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, Navidad said:

They accept my baptism for membership and don't doubt my salvation and eternal life, even in the absence of Catholic baptism and confirmation

But they and many other Christian faiths would require me to be rebaptized even though I am a Christian.  (Don't have a problem with that)

[Navidad]

58 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I can respect that.  I personally believe the bible on this topic and think that you are wrong but I understand that others don't.  I do think it's important to remember though that believing that no one can access 'heaven' without going through Christ does not mean that anyone but Christ is judging non-Christians.  

Christ is able to be merciful and fair while still being the only name wherein we can be saved.   

Couldn't agree more. It is only because of the atonement of Christ that anyone can be saved or experience eternal life. "It is by grace we are saved through faith." God's grace as bestowed on us in the atonement is the key to the whole experience. Where folks differ and struggle is the definition of 'faith," especially for those who have never heard the gospel of Christ.

[Navidad]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

But they and many other Christian faiths would require me to be rebaptized even though I am a Christian.  (Don't have a problem with that)

Well, my  understanding on that is that is because they recognize an LDS baptism as non-Trinitarian - hence invalid. 

[Navidad]

22 hours ago, alter idem said:

I'm not sure if I read you right, but if you think that IF this really is the Lord's true church, then we should have more members... well, that's not how it will be.

In 1 Ne 14:12  we read this;

So, how I read this prophecy is that we should expect that the faithful Saints and members of the Lord's church will always be a small number, but the hope is that we will have small pockets of members all over the world.  I don't think the Lord will condemn us if we continue to try to follow his commandment to preach the Gospel to all the world and yet, few accept it.  It is an invitation we share-- and all have agency.  They can accept or reject, that is not on us, but our charge is to offer the invitation to all we can.

And to clarify,  we don't 'save' them, the Savior does that, through his atonement.  We are charged with offering them saving ordinances and completing those ordinances as is required, here on earth.  However, the saving ordinances must be made effectual, by the individual being justified and sanctified through accepting the sacrifice and blood shed by the Lord Jesus Christ.

Just to clarify, you quoted the passage about the "whore." In LDS interpretation, who is the whore? Does it refer to a specific person or group or is it purely metaphorical? Thanks.