3DOP

Hi GoCeltics. So look at the way the thread has gone. As an LDS can you see that you can get away from the King Follett Discourse? Think about how the Restoration is still less than 200 years old. You seem to see some problems at General Conference with how LDS leadership still misunderstands that which they seem obliged to oppose. Not necessarily GoCeltics. LDS have more freedom to think it all over. I have been here for a long time as a Catholic. I only knew what LDS said they believed about the Godhead. I have proceded as though these beliefs found significant support in the LDS Standard Works. But if most of this stuff about God as a more evolved human comes from non-canonical sources, it seems from the outside like a game changer. Going with your canon apart from a King Follet Discourse, it seems like you could not be excluded from the Christian family! My church would have to accept your baptisms. I would be happy for that to be so. But what do you see from the inside, as a Latter-day Saint?

So...without immediately interacting with the latest remarks, I have been wondering what you think @GoCeltics since you started this whole thread. I don't want to discourage you from being LDS unless you are veering off on a course to Rome(!), which seems premature. You are still okay as LDS? I am thinking of another thread that might interest you. Unless you are still watching here. Let us know where you are on this. What are your thoughts?

As an LDS, I could handle a blip in history where LDS acted like the King Follett Discourse is canonical. My problem comes if because of a non-canonical exhortation, the Restored Church claims evidence of apostasy in the early church because, without the KFD (!), the early church developed beliefs about the Godhead which are close to what early LDS believed before the KFD. There might be other apostasy arguments to be examined. But if LDS are allowed to hold to beliefs in their early days that seem close to Nicene theology, then how could Nicea be used against the early church as evidence of apostasy? There are still questions about priesthood authority and the need for Apostles. But could we maybe stop worrying about over hellenized Christians who met at Nicea missing digits and eyeballs because they were tortured for their faith in Plato? LDS should respect and honor them for their sacrifices for Jesus even with doubt about their precise teachings. In any event, the Restored Church will eventually end up closer to Nicea than that sketchy funeral oration. LDS have been inferring to me for almost thirty years that bad and corrupt bishops who met at Nicea suffered horrendous tortures in the Diocletian persecution in the hope of undermining Christ's Gospel for Greek philosophy at some future they could not have foreseen. I can't believe that. Eventually that false history is going to be laid to rest by the LDS too. In less than two centuries I should think.

Longview, hello. Thumbs up. So much of the Old Testament is gradual mitigation (your word). We don't have to defend everything in it as Christians. Nor should we advocate everything in it. I submit that knowledge of revelation is still not fully understood. But you are LDS. Your own tradition calls for continuing revelation. There is parallel. Mine calls for continuing understanding. Some of these so called liberals read the Scriptures like Fundamentalists! Everything is literal. No contextual ideas about gradual light. We can't go from midnight to noon. And because of the liberal/fundamentalist approach to revelation they end up in unbelief. There is a middle way. Maybe, and even probably, I am being over optimistic about my interpretation about how we agree. My apologies if so. I am an agreeable fellow wherever I can see hope for agreement. For that matter, one like us (or me) cannot object to liberal objections to apparent slavery and genocide. We are on their side on the issue. But their fundamentalist understanding of Scripture makes them reject it. They are too simplistic.

Being non denomination sola scriptura, do you arrive at support for polygamy now? Or like virtually every Christian, do you acknowledge its toleration only in ancient times, the "times of ignorance which God winked at." You will have a hard time sharing a husband with your fellow wives with any Christians anywhere except the tiniest Sola Scriptura community today rosenotes. You might find some sick pud who welcomes you on the side without telling his wife. I hope you wouldn't want that kind of "husband".

Truth as being? Would that be that truth is what is, whether created or uncreated? I think your idea might differ from an axiom I have held as a definition of truth: "Truth is the conformity of the mind to reality." Would you maybe prefer this: "Enlightenment is the conformity of the mind to reality." In my axiom, truth seems to depend on a mind. But if truth is being, or reality, or what is, then what? "What is" is "out there" with or without a conforming mind. Am I understanding you?

The problem of "attributing things like genocide or slavery to God", by Christian commentators is the wrong solution to the biblical record. In my ever-developing opinion, a strong argument might be made in allowing for a view of God's revelation to man, in a methodical and gradual manner over the centuries. Jesus could have come and preached the Sermon on the Mount to Moses, but for reasons only to be guessed at, that revelation was many centuries away. In the meantime, God's people were sometimes acting in good conscience, while acting in ways that would be strictly prohibited by a Christian conscience today. The Holy Spirit (Ghost), continues to lead God's people into all truth. I doubt that this work is finished, but we see gradual acceptance of the implications of Christ's teachings, until today when many of the ethical actions of both Christians and ancient Israel might be considered forbidden today. We must make these judgments of exterior acts in the case of our distant fathers in the faith without judging their interior dispositions. We cannot expect ancient people to follow revelations and development of revelations that were only in their futures. With the development of God's fullest revelation to man, we must hold firm to believing in God's love for all of those created in His image. Only at the final judgment will we see and praise God for His wisdom and goodness when slain and slayer, slave and slaveholder, may in a glorious irony, embrace as one in God's heavenly kingdom forever. (I think I should perhaps start a thread on this concept of the Divine Pedagogy. That is, the way God has chosen to enlighten His people through the centuries.) 3DOP

Great! But please dissuade them by all possible means, for the child's sake to avoid naming the next one 3DOP. Hehe. Congratulations Tacenda and thanks for letting me know. I will say a little prayer for little Rory. God bless you too.

Very interesting Teancum. Do you think it is impossible that at a future time that the LDS could return to its primitive roots? The LDS Church is not 200 years old. The LDS correctly point out that creedal orthodoxy in the early church didn't arrive until Nicea. Few LDS even understand Nicene thought. It isn't so remotely different, nor certainly as ridiculous as many LDS have believed. The only major problem I would see, is that to return to its roots, the LDS would lose one of its arguments against the early church. Where would be the big Apostasy? Can you think of any other reasons why, like the early church, the LDS could not return to its earliest sources after, say, 300 years of existence? They could still plead a necessity of Apostles. Thanks, 3DOP

See you soon! Thanks InCognitus.

I am current! I didn't try my name. Thanks MorningStar...I am impatient and backwards about these things.

I couldn't do the budget on Saturday because after a power outage and reboot Microsoft wants my wife's password to an email address that hasn't been used for along time. 20 years? Passwords...always changing...you can't just have one for everything. I just want to say goodbye in the event my email isn't correct. Which would mean yet another new password. I have already tried pressing every icon on my phone to find out my email. I know it has changed in the last fifteen years. Conditional Goodbye everybody. It's been a nice run. 3

Hello Navidad. A blessed and happy Lord's Day to you and Mrs. Navidad. I can't remember counselling you to be unoffended. But its not a bad idea Nav! There are some Christians who are more exclusive than others. If like the LDS and Catholics they believe in a priestly hierarchy, there have to be boundaries to be accepted for one to be fully LDS or Catholic in this life. I could wish for your own sake as I am sure everybody here wishes, that the membership rules could be bent for a fellow Christian, who we do not doubt loves the Lord, and laments he can't really be "in our club". But try to understand that it would be to deny our own identity to adjust beliefs and practices for those we love. You have sensed that love in your LDS sojourn, I think? And you seem to have had good experiences with your local Catholic priests too. Its not personal at all. We can only open the door so far and be true to our faith traditions. I would think that your recent experiences in real life and to a lesser extent online, should give you some insights into the phenomenon of Christian exclusivity. I have already told you how I pondered a lot about your observation that even as a Catholic, I tended towards fundamentalism (exclusivity?). You were correct. I have made an adjustment. But even now in the Catholic mainstream, post Vatican 2? I cannot get away from the teaching that in some sense, there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. In the years when I was struggling over where to plant my flag, I realized that there are two kinds of Christian Church, those that say they are one true Church, and those that don't. Almost all of them are in the second group, that don't. I take them at their word in thinking that I am okay outside of any of their not one true visible churches. That is why I narrowed it down to the LDS and Catholic churches. Now here you are, ironically, living in a region where those are your only choices. It seems like it should have been me! But God's ways are funny. You have to believe it is God's will for you and I know you know. The pain you feel because of not being fully accepted is part of your path. Maybe it is so you can write a better book! I pray that it is so we could sing and pray and worship together as one on earth. But if not, I would hope that we could in the not distant future, do so forever and ever. God love you. Your friend in Jesus, Rory

InCognitus, hey. No hurry and no reply needed. Without quoting your post within the system, I responded with all manner of destruction and ruin upon your last ignorant post. This post is a courtesy so you will get a notice of a post to you in this thread. I cannot resist making certain of your opportunity to see the delicious dinner I have served you. Eat it if you dare 😋 Disclaimer: The preceding is an example of my sometimes misunderstood and offbeat humor. Regards, 3DOP

Hey Misere. I fear that the assumption on the part of our Church is that there is a unity of belief among LDS on doctrines that might make for an invalid baptism in our eyes. From the beginning, I have thought this is a flaw in our current Church policy. I think that it could be too difficult to discover the beliefs of LDS ministers of baptism. Unless we can conclude that all Latter-day Saints believe the invalidating articles mentioned in the Catholic ruling, it would be prudent to administer conditional baptisms to LDS converts. Catholics had hardly begun to advance to a uniform creedal unity when we were the same age as the LDS are today. I suspect there were baptisms according to proper form for three centuries that might have been invalid according to the standard we now apply to the LDS. Anyway Jesse, our bunch were excused from following a Nicene Creed that was many years away. I think the baptisms were all valid because of form. Ignorance of the meaning of the full meaning of the form does not invalidate. I have a broader idea of how doctrinal error would affect the Sacrament than the brightest minds in Rome. I don't to disagree. But maybe in my pride, I think I am perhaps better acquainted with the nuances of LDS beliefs and practices than they? I am open to correction. By the way, give the LDS a hundred years and they might have a creed too. And it might be more Nicene than anybody today could believe!

Navidad hi. Ideally, I do not find plurality in religion something to celebrate in society. I profess to hope for unity instead. The first and most intimate society is the family. I think few would argue that it is best for families to disagree with each other about religion. It would seem peculiar to find it any way uplifting if the members of a family unit went their separate ways in order to observe different forms of worship and religious exercises. Do any object to my observation on the family? If not, why should we as an ideal, wish and pray for religious disunity in other social structures extending to the state? Is there any objection to my use of the word "disunity" in exchange for "pluralism" as a synonym? Perhaps I am too simplistic regarding "pluralism"?

It would be remarkably absurd if a Catholic were to oppose infant baptism using that expression "baby sprinklers". It was more about the recipient of baptism than the mode. "Sprinkler" sounded silly which was on purpose. But the key was "baby". I believed in believers baptism only at the time. Maybe you thought I was speaking as a Catholic? No, no, no. I was confessing the ignorance of my early Protestant years when I used that expression, assuming there was no biblical argument at all for infant baptism. Subsequently, I was humbled when I learned better and and stopped ridiculing those I did not understand...Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Catholics (!) and others.

InCognitus, hi. I will be brief as I said. First a clip from your latest reply to me. InCognitus "I don't see how Deuteronomy 10:17 is saying anything about the possibility of the lesser gods as doing things for personal gain. But you are right about the existence of "strange gods", which were the idols of the nations. But none of those false gods could be compared to the one true God." Deut. 10:17 "For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward" Me I see a danger from the Israelites worshipping "gods" that are unworthy of comparison with the God of Deut. 10:17, made by men's hands like the Golden Calf fashioned by Aaron, or other such "gods" of the nations. I am not familiar with any reasons for why God should be warning them about worshipping a council of "less unworthy gods", when they are already worshipping created gods of clay, wood, or stone. Likewise living creatures whether animate or vegetative. Also no planets, stars, or mountains. No emperors or magistrates. I cannot make an exhaustive list. In short, no created object in existence is worthy of worship. As for magistrates called "gods" in certain translations, I could only think that the LORD was certainly referring to those, as opposed to "strange false gods", or a heavenly council of gods, none of whom one would suspect of being subject to bribery, or respecting persons in false judgment in Deut. 10. It would seem that you might admit this argument except that you hold that it is a mistranslation of the biblical text? I would be satisfied at this time if you could admit that if the translation which has guided my thinking on Deut. 10:17 were accurate, you too, would need to admit corruptible earthly civil authorities among those who are designated as gods in Scripture. I agree that no false gods are comparable to the one true God. But creatures that are made in His image, as I am sure you will agree, have attributes that are indeed similar, which give hope for exaltation and greater participation in God's incomparable nature. But when creatures which have such potential because of their similarities to the true God worship created things, it is a truly abominable demeaning of not only their own dignity, but especially that of the Creator. But this was what they did in ancient Israel, and I believe that this is what most of the Old Testament is talking about. Since you appear to be refraining from a definition of whom "the Heavenly Council" consists, or its function, I have no wish to oppose it. It could consist of men or angels. I could not conceive of its being an advisory body. Unless you would assign its function as a guide by which God discerns what He should do, or if you would teach that like God, the heavenly council are uncreated, I have no objection. Thanks, InCog, as usual, I appreciate the discussion with you here. ---------------------------- But theplains is GoCeltics? I thought GoCeltics was a questioning Latter-day Saint. I do not wish to offend by speaking to either of you in third person. So do you @theplains, or you @GoCeltics have a wish to admit or clear up any suspicions about your identities? Rory McKenzie

I am listening. I would regret to think you are missing something. Who here has ever heard of the Theravadan Buddhism? Granted that east is east and west is west, it seems like it might be okay to identify the US as a Christian nation, as a majority of the population or even among members of the US military. But the United States, as lawfully constituted now, and for a long time, cannot officially recognize anything as a state religion. Perhaps Thailand can? I dunno. Anyway my friend, just let's shake things up and be on different sides in love! Bash me...and me back at you. Let them see how we Catholics can think each other are stupid, but still ❤️ each other. Disclaimer: In my cups on the deck.

Heh. Maybe the words change meaning with such speed as I say above, because people like me change views fairly often. I am aware that my own college is very different today than it was forty years ago. Like me, it has softened. A lot of classmates have too. I can picture being anti-Mormon in those early days. Maybe we need to give these zealots of hatred a chance to let the Lord work on them a little. In twenty years, they will likely soften up too. Hateful Christianity often comes with an early bitter zeal built on ignorance. And if we will be fair, I think we can see ignorant representatives of this in all of our traditions. Above all, don't judge too early. God gives everybody a short life. But we can be thankful that every minute God is giving all of us graces to humble us...including those of us who might have been ignorantly arrogant towards those they did not understand.

A hundred years ago, to be fundamental meant that you believed in the Virgin birth, bodily resurrection, and other foundational Christian beliefs. Now it means a dangerous sect. A hundred years ago a cult was a particular belief. I have Catholic books that freely express belief in the cult of the Blessed Virgin. Now cult means a dangerous sect. I haven't kept up. When I was young, we talked about neo-Evangelicals as opposed to Fundamentalists like us. The neos were liberal. These words change meaning with such speed that it is hard to know what people mean by it. I agree with Navidad, that todays self-identified Evangelicals who have children that badger LDS children are wacky. They can call themselves what they want. I think they want to avoid being classified as what they are. But I truly do not know what word to use except non-Evangelical.

Thank you. Good job. I hope to answer with a brief rebuttal in the near future.

Right. It is customary for Catholics to say the Rosary on the vigil, the evening before the funeral while the body of the departed is resting in the chapel or church. I doubt this could be thought to be appropriate by LDS allowing their meeting house to be used by other faith traditions. Five Our Fathers? Maybe. Fifty Hail Marys? Probably not.

Heheh. Could be. Anyway...here are my results: Joseph (King Follett) 67% Joseph (Nauvoo) 67% Roberts 63% McConkey 63% Ostler 61% Givens 61% Progressive 52% Why look at that. I see little evidence that the "Hellenistic Fantasy" stops me from being LDS! HEH. Good one, longview. I would have given you one of those laughing things...but...have a great day longview. Thanks for the laugh! And congratulations for your McConkey score. Mine was disappointing. Regards, Rory

Catholics believe that in Holy Communion, the saints on earth are one in unity with Christ in the Eucharist. Excommunication occurs when a Catholic commits an act or obstinately professes a belief that is incompatible with that unity. It only means that the person is put on notice that the Church has judged that they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion. The excommunicated party is welcomed and encouraged to continue assisting at Mass. It is no different than when one has committed a mortal sin. If one deliberately sins in a serious, or grave matter, it is sacrilege to receive Holy Communion, until we are reconciled with God by making a Sacramental confession of repentance wherein we intend to make reparation and have a firm purpose of amendment. Excommunication is an expression of mercy to the guilty party warning them that receiving Holy Communion sacrilegiously (not in unity with other communicants) must not be taken lightly, but with the knowledge that whenever there is desire to return, a priest will happily receive us back into unity in the Confessional. In the meantime, our fellowship at Mass is welcomed.