Why I Haven't Become a Member

[manol]

I'm not saying this concept is exclusive to Mormonism, but one of the things I like therein is this rather aspirational teaching of Christ, found in 3^rd Nephi chapter 27 verse 27:

“What manner of men [and women] ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am.”

So if Christ is the Vine and we are the branches, and if we are to become the same manner of men and women as Christ, then imo who we are to be looks like:

The Vine showing up as Navidad

The Vine showing up as blackstrap

The Vine showing up as longview

The Vine showing up as let's roll

The Vine showing up as anonymous mormon

The Vine showing up as manol

The Vine showing up as JAHS

The Vine showing up as Kenngo1969

The Vine showing up as why me

The Vine showing up as Tony UK

The Vine showing up as Tacenda

The Vine showing up as smac97

The Vine showing up as calm

The Vine showing up as MiserereNobis

The Vine showing up as Rain

The Vine showing up as bluebell

The Vine showing up as Amulek

The Vine showing up as Senator

The Vine showing up as Pyreaux

The Vine showing up as 3DOP

And he hasn't posted in this thread yet, but just in case: The Vine showing up as The Nehor.

I think these and however many billion other branches, all of us still Works in Progress, are ways in which The Vine is in the process of showing up.

And imo our differences are “features”, rather than “bugs”. How boring it would be if we were all the same! Let us see and honor in one another the highest potential that can be seen.

Edited May 20 by manol

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

The problem is that everything in your church also hinges on private experience. 

I disagree. LDS theology, whatever else one thinks of it, is at least making a concrete ecclesiological claim about authority, ordination, ordinances, witnesses, and covenant structure, not merely elevating private spirituality by itself.

The LDS argument about authority is not simply, "I had a spiritual feeling." It's a historical and theological claim about whether Christ's priesthood authority was granted through claimed ordination events, witnesses, ordinances, and restored institutional continuity. Someone can reject those claims, of course. But that is a different category from purely subjective inward impressions detached from any external structure or historical claims.

 

[MiserereNobis]

18 hours ago, Navidad said:

If I were to join the Catholic Church, I would not have to be rebaptized; they accept the validity of mine.

True, but it is impartial. You would have to be confirmed and then receive communion as well, and those are specific Catholic sacraments requiring Catholic priesthood. In the case of confirmation, it is traditionally performed by the bishop, though bishops often delegate to priests.

[MiserereNobis]

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

The LDS position is not trying to fence God in.

It is simply recognizing that the New Testament repeatedly fences covenant administration in.

Those are two very different things.

The Catechism teaches this:

God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

I think that is similar to what you are saying, perhaps. I do like the idea: there are boundaries/fences, but not around God.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Rain said:

he problem is that everything in your church also hinges on private experience. 

Everything in life ultimately does (channeling Mfb).

[Calm]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

LDS would probably (meaning I say this and am assuming most of my fellow Saints would as well or at least agree if asked if true) say “God is bound by his own word, by his promises and his laws”.  We might debate (I don’t know how many would agree or disagree with me on this) whether or not it is strictly his choice to be bound by laws though. (I lean towards it is his choice, but that is today…hit me tomorrow with the same question and I might say ‘God is God because he understands and obeys the laws of existence so well’).  Are they his laws because he created them or his because he affirms and uses them so well to achieve what he desires for himself and others?

Quote

10 I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/82?lang=eng&id=p10#p10

Edited May 20 by Calm

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I disagree. LDS theology, whatever else one thinks of it, is at least making a concrete ecclesiological claim about authority, ordination, ordinances, witnesses, and covenant structure, not merely elevating private spirituality by itself.

The LDS argument about authority is not simply, "I had a spiritual feeling." It's a historical and theological claim about whether Christ's priesthood authority was granted through claimed ordination events, witnesses, ordinances, and restored institutional continuity. Someone can reject those claims, of course. But that is a different category from purely subjective inward impressions detached from any external structure or historical claims.

 

Yes, but accepting those claims requires a private spiritual feeling/subjective inward impression.  So, while what you talk about here is not quite the same as what Navidad talks about, it still hinges on private inspiration.

 

[Navidad]

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

Can I ask, what purpose do you believe ordination serves?

Also, when you say that "no ordinance has salvific authority", that sounds like a position of certainty because it is stated as a fact (though I know you are sharing your personal opinion on it, it seems like for you, it's a fact).  Can you explain how you don't mean it as a fact so that I can better understand how to interpret your statements better?

Ordination serves the purpose of identifying those who have the spiritual maturity and knowledge to be able to lead and serve a particular flock of Christians. It also conforms to certain legal aspects or religious service (chaplainship, marrying, etc.). Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other purpose ordination serves. In my tradition, there is virtually no power or authority connected with it. 

I am unaware of any Biblical ordinance (understanding that varies by group) that has any salvific purpose. I am not certain; I am simply unaware of any that do. The next part of the answer needs to be, For me, what are the ordinances? For me the Biblical ordinances include communion, marriage (in most cases), baptism as profession of faith, and footwashing (a Mennonite thing). I am uncertain if there are others. I suppose there are in other religious traditions, like in Catholicism. I am simply not competent to describe them well. I don't know which of those are thought to be salvific by their practitioners. Thanks for your questions. I hope I have answered them. It is like when I talk about footwashing to an LDS audience. They just look blankly at me. I believe I am correct, however, that the LDS apostles up until the early 1900s watched each other's feet when they went into session to make major decisions, like when they decided if Woodruff's Sunset or desert revelation was canonical. I always thought that was perhaps a carryover from the Whitmer's practice of it while they were in various Anabaptist groups before their LDS years. 

[Navidad]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

I do wish that we wouldn’t typically talk about others’ baptisms as meaningless or invalid, improper and only state other forms of baptism are invalid in a limited context, that of our authorized ordinance pertaining to membership in the restored Church, which ordinance contains specific forms of remission of sins (sanctification and purification occur in other ways as well even if this form is eventually necessary if seeking exaltation) as well as taking on Christ’s name in a specific way (others may take on his name in other ways, like declaring themselves to be Christian and testifying of him, acting as his hands in charitable works).

We are so used to thinking of baptism in only one way for ourselves, forgetting we used to be rebaptized for multiple reasons, as a testimony of our commitment, for healing (maybe for other things I have forgotten or don’t know about), that we have taken the next step of insisting it is the only way to baptize for anyone…which leads to unfounded claims that ancient Jews and ancient Americans baptized in the same way as we do now if we hear of ancient fonts or purification rituals.  
 

Even if we claim your baptism is valid for the purpose for which you yourself claim for it, I am guessing you still wouldn’t be baptized in our faith for the specific purpose of our ordinance because of our claim it serves a salvific purpose (it is commanded of the Lord in order to receive certain blessings from him) because you see this belief as to fundamentally wrong. 
 

aside:  I really don’t understand if any Saint said your baptism couldn’t serve as a testimony of Christ.

Am I correct in believing even if rebaptism to join a Lutheran congregation is acceptable, rebaptism to join an LDS congregation (the global one) is not in your view?

You said you would be baptized if joining a Lutheran congregation, but I don’t know the specific claimed nature of Lutheran baptism to be sure if the same sort of thinking could be applied to an LDS baptism.  

I couldn't be rebaptized if the reasons were 1. my original baptism was declared not pleasing to Christ.  2. If the rebaptism was for the remission of my sins and necessary for eternal life. Both of those beliefs would be way outside my comfort zone. My sins were remitted seventy years ago; no need to agree to a need for that again, especially when the method is via an ordinance. I hope that helps. 

[Navidad]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

That would depend on what they believe “brother in Christ” means.   To me, it’s another sincere Christian, whether they have the same covenants as I have or not, so there would be no need to cringe.  But that is also not how I personally use “Brother” or “ Sister”.  I don’t add in my head “in Christ” on to it. 

Would you cringe if someone spoke to you in Spanish (I am assuming you understand it even if you might be more fluent with English)?  Why would you cringe if people say Brother or Sister with a different interpretation than you if you understood what they meant even if it’s not what you would mean if they said it?

LDS think of all mankind as part of God’s family.  I believe that is how we generally view why we call each other “Brother” or “Sister”.  Any time I use Brother or Sister, it’s how I mean it…which means pretty much everyone who has ever existed fits that title.  I think I might choose not to use it for sons of perdition, who knowingly have rebelled against and rejected God, basically disowning themselves from his family, but otherwise I feel comfortable using it for anyone as long as they are comfortable with me calling them that.

Added:  I don’t believe Joseph Smith limited his use of Brother and Sister to only church members, but I am going off a vague memory.  Maybe someone else who is more familiar with his comments can confirm or correct me.

I would suggest that in this, I am influenced by the meaning of “brother” and “sister” in the Mennonite church culture. It is not an appellation that is easily used. It is reserved mostly for only those who are fellow Christians and close friends, and for some, only for those who are Mennonites, and for some, only for those who are the right kind of Mennonites. I am selective (I must admit) in which LDS friends I call brother. I guess I hadn't realized that before, but now that I think of it, it is true. So, once again, we are folks divided by a common language. My Pentecostal friends even have a different use of the word “brother” or “sister.” I think in the LDS culture it may be used in the sense of “friend.” Perhaps I am wrong. I am around the LDS all the time, and I rarely hear them using the term for someone they don't really know. I don't know whether that helps or not. 

Edited May 20 by Navidad

[Navidad]

14 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Navidad. Hi.

I enjoyed hearing about your son's baptism. The reason is that Catholics sometimes get a bit of grief from some Protestant sections for our practice of different modes of baptism. We acknowledge that immersion in water is the most symbolically rich of the ways that are valid according to the Church. "Buried in baptism" being part of that. But I don't understand how people who desire baptism on their death beds should be deprived because of their physical condition. It is easy for modern Protestants to be dogmatic about how everybody needs to be dunked in a heated baptismal pool. What about people in wintry climates in the past where all the standing water has turned to ice?  Must they wait until summer to be baptized? There are many other cases I can think of like that of your son, where I believe that God in His mercy, would be pleased that His children for whom the symbolically rich mode, might be challenging, are permitted to receive baptism in a way that would be less of a hardship for them. I rejoice to believe in the validity of your son's baptism.

Please know that I am not going to try to persuade you of other Catholic teachings regarding Sacramental Theology. In a sense, I am "trying to make points with you". But it is only as I merely want to emphasize areas where we happen to be in agreement as a way to do my part to take little steps toward achieving Christian love and unity. I loved that your bishop departed from the ordinary norms of Mennonites because of your son's fear of water.

Maybe his Mom had trouble washing his hair when he was a baby! We had a boy like that who grew out of it, but it was kind of tricky at first to figure out a way to let Mom get his head wet.

Rory     

Thanks my friend. Well said. We learned about Chris's fear when trying to give him a bath as a baby! 

[Navidad]

8 hours ago, Amulek said:

I agree that the Spirit can work wherever God desires.

The question, however, is whether the New Testament therefore concludes that covenant authority becomes unnecessary.

I do not think it does.

The New Testament simultaneously teaches both: (1) God is not confined geographically or institutionally, and (2) Christ still established a visible covenant Church with authorized servants and ordinances.

Those ideas are not opposites.

For Example, the Spirit clearly worked outside Israel in the Old Testament, yet priesthood authority still existed. 

Likewise, in the New Testament, Cornelius receives divine manifestation before baptism, yet Peter is still sent to administer covenant entry. Paul acknowledges spiritual gifts among believers, yet still insists on ordination, order, authority, and proper administration. People can experience miracles outside the apostolic circle, yet ordinances themselves are always tied to authorized administration.

So the biblical pattern is not, “Since God can work anywhere, covenant authority disappears.” Rather, it is more like “God works broadly among humanity while still establishing covenant structures and authorized servants.”

Otherwise several New Testament realities become difficult to explain. Why apostles at all? Why ordination? Why laying on of hands? Why church discipline? Why qualifications for bishops and elders? Why “keys” in Matthew 16? Why “as my Father sent me, so send I you” in John 20? Why Acts 19 rebaptism? Why Hebrews 5:4 insisting that authority is called, not self-assumed?

The LDS position is not trying to fence God in.

It is simply recognizing that the New Testament repeatedly fences covenant administration in.

Those are two very different things.

 

Hi my friend: I  hope that you can accept that we have very different interpretations of some New Testament passages. I read the same passages you do and draw very different conclusions about them. Interpretation is endemic to all Biblical studies. One of the reasons for all of the different Christian groups is because of those differences in interpretations. I can acknowledge that I disagree with many such interpretations. I must just as quickly acknowledge that my disagreement doesn't make any of them wrong, any more that my agreement with them would make them correct. We are not privileged to have certainty in this dispensation because God is content with us seeking through a glass darkly as we decide, interpret, understand, and choose. We each do our best. 

[webbles]

8 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I would suggest that in this, I am influenced by the meaning of “brother” and “sister” in the Mennonite church culture. It is not an appellation that is easily used. It is reserved mostly for only those who are fellow Christians and close friends, and for some, only for those who are Mennonites, and for some, only for those who are the right kind of Mennonites. I am selective (I must admit) in which LDS friends I call brother. I guess I hadn't realized that before, but now that I think of it, it is true. So, once again, we are folks divided by a common language. My Pentecostal friends even have a different use of the word “brother” or “sister.” I think in the LDS culture it may be used in the sense of “friend.” Perhaps I am wrong. I am around the LDS all the time, and I rarely hear them using the term for someone they don't really know. I don't know whether that helps or not. 

I only use "brother" and "sister" for those that I see in church (whether they are members or not) and with whom I don't feel comfortable with a first name basis.  It is similar to "Mr"/"Mrs"/"Ms".  It doesn't mean anything about "brother in Christ" or "sister in Christ".  It doesn't really even mean "fellow child of God" to me.  So if you happened to be attending my ward (just like you are) and I wasn't comfortable with your first name, I would call you brother.  So, I'm the opposite of those in the Mennonite church culture.  It is reserved for people who are not close friends with me.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

True, but it is impartial. You would have to be confirmed and then receive communion as well, and those are specific Catholic sacraments requiring Catholic priesthood. In the case of confirmation, it is traditionally performed by the bishop, though bishops often delegate to priests.

Absolutely and all of those things are instructional  and helpful. One of my workers and friends here in Chihuahua just went through that process as a late 30's adult male ( a bold thing to do in our culture). He is a different person for having done that. I can see the difference every day. 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

LDS would probably (meaning I say this and am assuming most of my fellow Saints would as well or at least agree if asked if true) say “God is bound by his own word, by his promises and his laws”.  We might debate (I don’t know how many would agree or disagree with me on this) whether or not it is strictly his choice to be bound by laws though. (I lean towards it is his choice, but that is today…hit me tomorrow with the same question and I might say ‘God is God because he understands and obeys the laws of existence so well’).  Are they his laws because he created them or his because he affirms and uses them so well to achieve what he desires for himself and others?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/82?lang=eng&id=p10#p10

You all sound somewhat like Reformed Presbyterian Calvinists having this discussion! 

[Navidad]

Someone on this thread asked a critical question, and I want to answer it. Why does Navidad keep coming back to this forum with many of the same questions (since 2018 or so)? Without belaboring the point, but trying to answer honestly, here is my answer. It is because Navidad has some pretty deep soul wounds from his experience with the Saints here in Chihuahua. It is also because Navidad had some deep joys from his experience with the Saints here in Chihuahua. It is also because Navidad had a traumatic time in 2025 from October through December, and is still seeking to understand and deal with the pain of all of that. Don't get me wrong; I am a better man for having experienced all of that. I am grateful for that, but am still in significant pain from it. We live in a tiny village. There is no human place for me to turn to for understanding. I had that in our former bishop and ward friends. Both of those sources are now gone. The special “authority” you all talk about has taken our fellowship and friends from us. So forgive me for some anger about that and non-enthusiasm for such authority, which can be as harmful as it can be helpful, depending on whose hands hold it. 

I come back to this forum for fellowship. I come back to have someone to "talk to." I come back because, at least as of this point, you all haven't taken away my right or welcome to be here. Perhaps someday you will tire of my long posts, questions, and answers, so you will decide to disbar me from fellowship here. At least you have not done that as of this point. I appreciate the discussion and patience you have with me. In that sense it may not be an exaggeration to say you are in some way a family for me. Your names are familiar, your responses are familiar, and I need that familiarity right now. I hope that helps answer your questions. My best wishes, and with a grateful heart, Navidad 

Edited May 21 by Navidad
typo fix and clarification

[Senator]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Yes, but accepting those claims requires a private spiritual feeling/subjective inward impression.  So, while what you talk about here is not quite the same as what Navidad talks about, it still hinges on private inspiration.

 

And ultimately all of the LDS claims to truth and authority boil down to someone's personal spiritual experience. Namely, Joseph Smith.  So, yes it is authoritative, to those who believe it.

[rodheadlee]

On 5/18/2026 at 8:05 PM, Navidad said:

I am not sure to whom you are asking your questions? I think all of your first questions are for Christ to decide. Not you or me. What do I think about five-point Calvinists? Not much. I don't know any. I have never spoken with any. I have been a Christian since I was six and am now 77.  What they believe has no interest to me. Nor does it have any impact on my relationship to Christ now or in eternity. I will just say I think there is a lot more variance in their beliefs than you are stating, as there are in my LDS friends as well. There is always variance in every religious group. 

I don't think Christ especially wants us to change as much as he wants us to grow in truthing, loving, and caring. More the fruits of the spirit kinds of things. Being kinds-of-things. Right off the cuff, I don't remember any verses exhorting us to change, but to grow in Him in grace, truth, peace, and love. Maybe that is just parsing words. It is like the difference between migrating and converting. In my life I have been non-denominational, Baptist, Mennonite, and if I could be one right now, I would be Moravian. I see each of those as a migration, just as I would see it if I became LDS. Migration doesn't necessarily involve ordinances, rites, creeds, or rituals. Although those vary across all branches of Christianity.

If I became LDS, how would I be converting? I would be migrating to a different form of Christianity with all same basic tenets of faith that all the rest of those I have belonged to affirm. As do almost all Christian groups (not all). If I became Muslim, I would be converting, I think. But joining another branch of the vine that is Jesus Christ? I don't think so. I have been to enough LDS sacraments, Sunday Schools, and Elder Quorums to have realized that the teachings are about 85% the same as in every other Christian church I have attended. The other 15% are of no interest to me one way or the other, because I don't value certainty in any believer. Sorry, I wrote too much. Take care. 

If you convert you would be converting to the church that Jesus Christ himself set up. I think He might be kind of cranky at those of us who just bypass His efforts. 

Edited May 21 by rodheadlee

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

. I am around the LDS all the time, and I rarely hear them using the term for someone they don't really know.

That may be because they want to avoid awkwardness (someone who doesn’t know them might misunderstand or it just feels too intimate outside of the context of church) rather than they don’t think of them as “brothers” or “sisters” for the same reason they call others that.   It isn’t something I have discussed with other LDS, but just assumed though because of our constant referencing of everyone being a child of God.  I act differently, more relaxed with my sister who I text with constantly, who stays with us whenever visiting Utah (we think of the spare room as pretty much her bedroom) than I do with a sibling who has pretty much disowned the family except for their own sweet children (none of us understand why), but both are still my family, so it’s understandable to me why there would be different comfort levels even as we see everyone as family.

I suppose you could describe it as we most often use “brothers” and “sisters” for those of our greater family with which we are on friendly terms, but I speculate it’s mostly influenced by the church context.  If someone comes to church, we get into the habit of calling them “brother” or “sister” and continue to think of them in that way outside of church…unless we use first names.   
 

added:  somehow I missed several posts, including webbles’ which gives another POV than mine, I am now reading them.

One thing I have learned over the years is while we members often assume we are doing and thinking the same things, there are often significant unseen differences.  A lot of people in and out of the Church assume we are pretty much cookie cut when that is more a like a top layer of similarity, imo, because we are encouraged not to be contentious, to be loving and accepting and that gets interpreted into no questioning or debating (and given how debates occur in much of the public sector, it’s reasonable imo to want avoid them).  I think based on my personal experiences of talking to other Saints here and elsewhere that a lot of us do the same things for different reasons and when it comes to nuances in our belief, quite varied even if the basic stuff sounds the same.

Edited May 21 by Calm

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

You all sound somewhat like Reformed Presbyterian Calvinists having this discussion! 

In what way?

[Rain]

15 hours ago, Navidad said:

I would suggest that in this, I am influenced by the meaning of “brother” and “sister” in the Mennonite church culture. It is not an appellation that is easily used. It is reserved mostly for only those who are fellow Christians and close friends, and for some, only for those who are Mennonites, and for some, only for those who are the right kind of Mennonites. I am selective (I must admit) in which LDS friends I call brother. I guess I hadn't realized that before, but now that I think of it, it is true. So, once again, we are folks divided by a common language. My Pentecostal friends even have a different use of the word “brother” or “sister.” I think in the LDS culture it may be used in the sense of “friend.” Perhaps I am wrong. I am around the LDS all the time, and I rarely hear them using the term for someone they don't really know. I don't know whether that helps or not. 

The timing of you talking about this hits me. I never liked the brother and sister thing. I recognize that it is a doctrinal reminder of our relationship with each other as literal children of God, but it has always felt like forced closeness with members of the chuch meerly because of membership in the church. 

It hit me pretty hard this weekend. My son was married and a few hours later was sealed.  Afterwards, the sealer came out to talk with me. He called me "Sister _____" and like I've done for years before my church struggles started because it always felt fake, I said my first name.  He grimaced and then went on with what he planned to say, never acknowledging what I preferred to be called. It felt performative and controlling, not looking on my heart and seeing me. 

Anyway, like calm says it will vary on who is saying it, but in my experience, brother and sister are used to enforce fake closeness because of membership in the church.

 

[Navidad]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

In what way?

In the discussions in this thread about God being bound by His own covenants, word, and promises. It was only a few comments. I am sorry I didn't make my post clearer as to what I was referring. That tends to be a big debate among Calvinist and Reformed-leaning folks. 

Edited May 21 by Navidad
clarification

[Navidad]

14 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

If you convert you would be converting to the church that Jesus Christ himself set up. I think He might be kind of cranky at those of us who just bypass His efforts. 

changed my mind
 

[Navidad]

29 minutes ago, Rain said:

It felt performative and controlling, not looking on my heart and seeing me. 

From my point of view and experience, you have really hit the nail on the head. I wish I could have said it so well. You have accurately described many of my experiences with missionaries and with members of our ward when we see them in the grocery store. Of course, I acknowledge that they might be feeling the same thing about me. 

Edited May 21 by Navidad
additional thought

[Rain]

29 minutes ago, Navidad said:

From my point of view and experience, you have really hit the nail on the head. I wish I could have said it so well. You have accurately described many of my experiences with missionaries and with members of our ward when we see them in the grocery store. Of course, I acknowledge that they might be feeling the same thing about me. 

To be clear, I don't feel this way about every time a member says brother or sister.  Sometimes it is habit.  Sometimes the person doesn't know the other person's first name. Often it is just a cultural thing. I also think in some areas of the world and with a few people it does denote closeness, it's just does not happen very often in my experience.

Also, with what else the sealer said and how he acted and the timing it came out so much stronger than it usually does, but yes, overall, that is why I never liked being called Sister.

Edited May 21 by Rain