Great Apostasy revisited

[BlipBlap]

On 9/9/2026 at 10:18 PM, webbles said:

Ok, pick another creed Chalcedonian Creed.  Same thing.

Though, we also do believe that outside influences can trigger revelations.  See D&C 89 and Emma's concern about tobacco, Official Declaration 1 and all the polygamy federal push, etc.  So, I don't see the problem with government influence in something that was also inspired.  Just because the government was involved doesn't mean that inspiration and revelation wasn't there.

Sure, but we also aren't talking about lesser things like tobacco use or polygamy.  Constantine essentially called a council to determine the nature of God and essentially would not allow any sort of dissent with his view.  This is of a much greater magnitude than the two examples you presented.

[BlipBlap]

On 9/9/2026 at 5:10 PM, Calm said:

I don’t think you have actually established these two positions are opposing and cannot both be true, but simply assumed it.

Work on that first.  

Or perhaps you should work on reading comprehension.

If I claim that public revelation has ceased, but not all has been made explicit, that is no different than saying that public revelation has continued.

If something is not explicit, it is functionally no different than something that is unknown.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, BlipBlap said:

f I claim that public revelation has ceased, but not all has been made explicit, that is no different than saying that public revelation has continued.

 

Someone announces the data has all been collected from an experiment and that stage of research has been finished; the lab has been assigned to someone else and the students helping out have moved on to their next project.  While preliminary findings may have been released, more in-depth examination may still result in additional or even different findings.  That isn’t functionally the same as the experimental part of the research still continuing even if new conclusions can be arrived at by either new data collected or new examination of old data.

In this case, public revelation is equivalent to experimental data where further knowledge can come from additional examination of that public revelation.

Or look at it like a painting that has hidden features in it.  It’s not a new painting just because someone finally figures out how to shift their attention to be able to see those previously hidden features.  

Edited Saturday at 09:00 PM by Calm

[BlipBlap]

On 9/9/2026 at 7:41 PM, MiserereNobis said:

I get the feeling you don't really care to find out what we Catholics believe. Gotchas, insults, inflammatory posts seem to be more your method.

"Cops out"? There is nuance. Not everything is on/off, black/white, right/wrong, true/false.

They are not logically opposing. They are nuanced.

I've said for many years on this forum that the Pope and LDS Prophet function practically the same. And yeah, we don't call the pope a "living prophet." We call him the Vicar of Christ. It's got a little more punch to it than prophet, so don't think we are downplaying his role as compared to your prophet

How, in practical terms, is the Pope, together with the College of Bishops, promulgating doctrine and dogma any different than the LDS prophet, together with the other 14 apostles, promulgating doctrine? They both claim inspiration and revelation, right?

I know that word revelation trips you up, so let's take a look at the last time the pope infallibly declared a dogma. This is the dogma of the Assumption of Mary, that she was taken body and soul into heaven. Pope Pius XII declared this on November 1, 1950. Yes, 76 years ago, but unless I'm mistaken, the last time the equivalent happened in your church (Official Declaration 2, which the internet says June 8, 1978) was 48 years ago.

Here's what the Pope said in Munificentissiumus Deus:

So, he claims the authority of Christ and apostolic succession, then calls it "divinely revealed." Dogma is the highest level of doctrine in the Catholic Church. It is revealed by God, infallible, and requires positive assent by Catholics.

Again, I don't think you discuss things in good faith. You don't understand the ideas and beliefs of other religions, then you dismiss it when people of those religions tell you you are wrong about their beliefs. You call their explanations cop outs, excuses, and cognitive dissonance, and say that they pull things out of their asses as the source of some of their most cherished beliefs. As you might know from my avatar picture, I adore the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Finally, we may be wrong, but we're not stupid. The brightest minds of western civilization believed in and argued for the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Wrong, perhaps, stupid, no way. Please be more respectful when disagreeing with others' cherished beliefs. As others on this board can tell you, the non-LDS Christians here try to do the same with your beliefs.

 

If I didn't really care, I wouldn't have bothered to look in the first place.  If you find something about this to be "insulting", "inflammatory", or a "gotcha", that's more on you than me.  You're choosing to be insulted over a critique of your church's own words and actions.

Yes, cop outs.  If there is nuance, then surely you should be able to explain it rather than simply state that it exists.

They are logically opposing.  Again, show the nuance.  Seeing as how you referenced nuance twice to this point and failed to elaborate, I'll again go with this being a cop-out.

Revelation that has not been made explicit is functionally equivalent to something that has yet to be revealed.  If I claim that I have all of the burgers in the world and that there will be no more, but then in the same breath state that some burgers have yet to be made, I can't rightly claim to have all burgers in the world or that there will be no more.

Whether you call the pope a "living prophet" or not isn't all that relevant.  The point is that you claim that prophets are no longer needed, yet treat the pope as one in all but name.  As for vicar supposedly having more "punch", that doesn't really hold water either given that "vicar" doesn't even have theological roots as a title, while the concept of a "living prophet" as relevant to Christianity goes as back to Adam.  Also, given that "vicar" originally referenced the officials under the command of the Praetorian Guard, this isn't the flex you think it is (as some younger people would say) given the Guard's history as an organization.  They had a bit of a habit of killing those who they were supposed to be protecting. 

Sure, both your pope and our prophet both claim inspiration and revelation.  But again, as I quite explicitly illustrated earlier, the pope operates under the presumption that all public revelation has ceased while simultaneously claiming that not all public revelation has been made explicit.  Again, this is the cop-out.  Instead of just simply saying that the pope is a living prophet and that public revelation is still ongoing, you have to perform this dissonant dance where you deny the concept of a living prophet and ongoing public revelation but still behave as if both are true.

The word revelation doesn't trip me up at all, that seems to be more your bag.  Again, you claim that all public revelation has ceased but not all public revelation has been made explicit.  We just say that it's ongoing.  The latter is far more honest than the former.

Yes, the Assumption of Mary was declared dogma back in 1950.  Again, there's the issue.  Why, if public revelation has been complete for close to 2000 years, would this only be made dogma less than a century ago?  What would the point be in keeping this particular concept unexplicated for so long?  Nevermind the absence of scriptural support and the questionable support in tradition.  This goes back to what I presented earlier.  The Catholic church's behaviors do not match up with it's actions.

Accusing me of bad faith is hilarious when I point out a blatant contradiction in your church's statements versus its behaviors.  You can't even elaborate on this "nuance" I'm supposedly missing or where I'm incorrect (given that my stance is taken directly from your church's own words).

At what point did I claim that you were stupid?  Again, if you have issue with my presentation, that's entirely on you.

[BlipBlap]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

Someone announces the data has all been collected from an experiment and that stage of research has been finished; the lab has been assigned to someone else and the students helping out have moved on to their next project.  While preliminary findings may have been released, more in-depth examination may still result in additional or even different findings.  That isn’t functionally the same as the experimental part of the research still continuing even if new conclusions can be arrived at by either new data collected or new examination of old data.

In this case, public revelation is equivalent to experimental data where further knowledge can come from additional examination of that public revelation.

Or look at it like a painting that has hidden features in it.  It’s not a new painting just because someone finally figures out how to shift their attention to be able to see those previously hidden features.  

Except we aren't seeing further knowledge being gained from additional examination of public revelation, we are seeing conceptually new things.  See the example of the Assumption of Mary.  It has no support in scripture and it's support in tradition is questionable at best.

There are some issues with this analogy:

1.  Scale:  In this case, the claim is that all data has been collected, but the experiment (i.e. mortal human existence) is still continuing despite the claim that all data has been collected.  It is strange indeed to deny that data collection is continuing, but to then take so long at releasing the data set despite it supposedly being complete.

2.  Lack of evidence:  This support for this completeness claim is stated to be from the parameters (i.e. scripture) set forth by the designer of the experiment as well as chiefs among the designer's chosen representatives (i.e. God, Jesus' apostles).  However, no explicit statements indicating this completeness can be found.

Comparing this to a painting is even worse.  If I can't see the whole painting, I have no reason to believe that it is complete.  Were it complete, there is little reason to keep some obscured while still claiming completeness.

Again, this is the cognitive dissonance.  What they say and how they behave are at odds with each other.  Instead of being honest and simply saying that public revelation is ongoing, they have to dance around the idea because they've caught themselves in a trap of their own making.

[webbles]

2 hours ago, BlipBlap said:

Sure, but we also aren't talking about lesser things like tobacco use or polygamy.  Constantine essentially called a council to determine the nature of God and essentially would not allow any sort of dissent with his view.  This is of a much greater magnitude than the two examples you presented.

And a believer of the Nicaean Creed could easily say that God inspired the argument between Arius and Alexander so that it would reach Constantine so that he would then call a council and so that the correct understanding of God would be revealed to the world.  What I'm trying to argue is that just because Catholics don't talk about continued revelation in the same terminology that we use doesn't mean that they don't believe in continued revelation.  For us, we call inspiration that is clarification of beliefs as "continued revelation".  For Catholics, they call it differently but it is pretty much the same thing.  For them, the "public revelation" is finished but God still inspires and directs the Pope and the bishops to clarify understanding of the public revelation.

1 hour ago, BlipBlap said:

Sure, both your pope and our prophet both claim inspiration and revelation.  But again, as I quite explicitly illustrated earlier, the pope operates under the presumption that all public revelation has ceased while simultaneously claiming that not all public revelation has been made explicit.  Again, this is the cop-out.  Instead of just simply saying that the pope is a living prophet and that public revelation is still ongoing, you have to perform this dissonant dance where you deny the concept of a living prophet and ongoing public revelation but still behave as if both are true.

The word revelation doesn't trip me up at all, that seems to be more your bag.  Again, you claim that all public revelation has ceased but not all public revelation has been made explicit.  We just say that it's ongoing.  The latter is far more honest than the former.

We say revelation is ongoing but then we also seem to have a closed cannon at this point.  Sure, we believe that it is possible to add to the cannon, but will we?  It feels like you are trying to argue semantics and show how we are more correct because our terminology makes more sense, but that only works if everyone accepts our definitions.  But they don't.  I think it is more useful to understand the definitions of others and work with those definitions vs trying to just say that they are wrong because their definition isn't ours.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

I think it is more useful to understand the definitions of others and work with those definitions vs trying to just say that they are wrong because their definition isn't ours.

This is very powerful. Well said. This is compelling. Well said. I was on the pastoral staff of at least six different churches (in varying capacities) including as senior pastor. In those capacities, I prepared teachings, sermons, instruction for two Sunday morning teachings, two Sunday evening teachings, and a Wednesday and/or Thursday evening Bible study. Every week. Every year, except perhaps when we had special speakers or I was on vacation. During those years no one ever told me what to teach or preach. There was no curriculum, no calendared formal schedule of lexicon to follow. For all those sermons/presentations/teachings, I prayed, studied, taught, and interpreted the gospel as I learned (I was always learning) it to be. It was quite a full-time job with visiting hospitals, shut-ins, administering the church, etc. In all of those situations, I was teaching in some form. I was telling the folks something in some way new every presentation. I prayed diligently for wisdom and guidance from the Holy Spirit as I prepared and then delivered each talk. At least over one thousand times at the very least. In some ways my teachings were authoritative for my congregations. Were they dogma? I don't know. I never thought of it that way. Were they canonical? Perhaps for some in my congregations who had an overly high estimate of me. Were they a revelation? Yes, I think so - at least, to @webbles point using my definition of the word. I never once consulted a creed, unless I was doing a series of teachings on creeds. 

In the same way, but to a much much much lesser degree and with no authority, except that which anyone has giving a LDS Sacrament talk, I took my turn (as did my wife) giving sacrament talks. I prepared in the same way. No one told me what to teach. I think I did it occasionally more often than "my turn" because if someone got sick, the bishop could count on me at the last minute. So, do I believe in new revelation from the Holy Spirit? Yes, every week as I taught. No, if you mean as authoritative for some church beyond my own. I preached in churches with bishops, in the case of Mennonite churches (and LDS chapels - if you will accept a Sacrament talk as a preaching - I do, because I really didn't do anything differerent, except make the talks a whole lot shorter. My "sermons" and Bible teachings in my full-time service were never less than an hour. I bet that doesn't surprise any of you! Ha!

I just offer all of this up to you to suggest that even when we speak of teaching, preaching, revelation, inspiration, explaining, or whatever we call it, we, who were in full-time ministry were always, often five times a week teaching and interpreting new stuff for our congregations from the sacred desk of the pulpit. Perhaps, no more than five times in all those efforts did I preach a sermon I heard someone else give or that I got from a book written by someone else. Was I a revelator? Yes and No.

Now of course, and you can imagine I can't resist saying this, I am told that I don't even have the Gift of the Holy Spirit because I am not LDS. I guess I was deceiving myself all those times I believed I did what I did under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit. So no, I can't agree with that onlyism of my LDS friends in that regard. Perhaps it is at best my personal truth. I would ask you all to accept that even if it runs counter to your doctrine which is your own corporate truth. I think that fits into what @webbleswas trying to say in the above quote. Anyway I love you all in Christ. I treasure this forum as a place where the vast majority of posters honor and respect each other. I think that makes Christ smile. Best to all Navidad. 

Edited yesterday at 12:51 AM by Navidad

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I am told that I don't even have the Gift of the Holy Spirit because I am not LDS. I guess I was deceiving myself all those times I believed I did what I did under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit

Again, not having the Gift of the Holy Ghost is not not having any direct influence of the Holy Spirit.  That is not authoritative doctrine of the Church.  The Gift of the Holy Ghost is one kind of direct influence, not the only kind.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Again, not having the Gift of the Holy Ghost is not not having any direct influence of the Holy Spirit.  That is not authoritative doctrine of the Church.  The Gift of the Holy Ghost is one kind of direct influence, not the only kind.

I appreciate you saying that on more than one occasion. I believe that is your teaching, and while I appreciate it very much. Here is what I read on the Church website in the article on the Gift of the Holy Spirit:

"Have you ever considered all the ways you’ve been blessed through the gift of the Holy Ghost? All of God’s children can experience the influence of the Holy Ghost guiding them to Jesus Christ and His gospel. But the gift of the Holy Ghost is reserved for those who, through faith in Jesus Christ and repentance, make covenants with Jesus Christ through baptism. This gift is the promise that you can enjoy the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost—a member of the Godhead. It is no ordinary gift—it can’t be seen—but its power is undeniable when you choose to receive it through righteous living. Those who receive the gift of the Holy Ghost are cleansed from sin, receive personal revelation, and enjoy the blessings known as “the gifts of the Spirit.”

Let's go down through that. 
1. All of God's children can experience the influence of the Holy Ghost guiding them to Jesus Christ and His Gospel. - In other words I can experience the influence of the Holy Spirit guiding me to the LDS Church. That's a pretty limited influence for me since I already have accepted Jesus Christ and His Gospel - just not in the LDS Church. Not much benefit for me there, right?
2. The Gift of the Holy Ghost is reserved for those who, through faith in Jesus Christ and repentance, make covenants with Jesus Christ through baptism.  That of course means no Gift of the Holy Ghost without LDS baptism and covenants. My baptism and covenants don't count. So there is no benefit there for me, right? 
3. This gift (the one available in 2. is the promise that you can enjoy the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. So this one isn't available to me, is it? No constant companionship. Maybe sometimes, once-in-a while companionship? I have no idea what this one even means. 
4. This is the big one!!! "Those who receive the gift of the Holy Ghost are cleansed from sin, receive personal revelation and enjoy the blessings known as "the gifts of the Spirit." This is a doozy (as my mother used to say). So. . . I haven't received the gift of the Holy Ghost, therefore I have not been cleansed from sin, I cannot receive personal revelation and by far, worst of all, I cannot enjoy the blessings known as "the gifts of the Spirit."  What does this mean except that I have no access to enjoy: Wisdom, Understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, Fear of the Lord, Faith, Healing, Miracles, prophecy, discerning Spirits, tongues, administrations and helps. Also, what about the fruits of the spirit? Without the Gift of the Spirit, how do I enjoy the fruits of the Spirit? That eliminates: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. These four items are devastating exclusions for me as a non-LDS Christian. As a non-LDS Christian, I clearly am less than. Over the last few months I have never felt more less than when it comes to our local LDS friends. 
 
So now I have to say I have experienced most all of these things to one degree or another, so of course my personal truth is that I reject this LDS doctrinal exclusion of all of this in the lives of non-LDS Christians. So your thinking seems to me to be non-orthodox on this issue. You are kind so you state the Gift of the Holy Ghost is one kind of direct influence of God in my life, not the only kind. So what are the other kinds of direct influences of God in my life? Certainly you can't mean the Light of Christ that is available to everyone on earth????? As a non-LDS Christian, what are the direct (to use your word) influences of the Holy Spirit I have available to me, given the exclusions listed in: Gift of the Holy Ghost  ? Thanks so much. I own that I get really frustrated on this one. It seems to me to be one of the principal doctrines of the LDS Church that when discussed with kind LDS Christians, I am told, "Well, we don't really mean that . . . . . . oh and its not something personal! Huh? No personal revelation isn't personal?  

I would rather not hijack this thread, but it is pretty related to the concept of a great apostasy. Anyway, I do appreciate your kindness as always, but the website isn't as kind as you are, is it?

Edited yesterday at 02:39 AM by Navidad

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

That's a pretty limited influence for me since I already have accepted Jesus Christ and His Gospel - just not in the LDS Church. Not much benefit for me there, right?

That is how some members interpret it if they choose to ignore what scriptures teach, but not having the constant guaranteed companionship is not the same as having no companionship at all nor does it exclude you from having it with you at all times because you seek it in other ways and are worthy in those ways.  
 

Think of the difference between having the marriage contract with your wife vs having a non contractual friendship with someone or a different form of contract even.  That someone could even move in to be a roommate, so with you as often or even more than a wife might be.  They might even have a contract based on something besides marriage.  They will never be your spouse, but they may have a very deep, different type of intimate relationship with you, correct?
 

Quote

? I have no idea what this one even means. 

And I believe that is where most people get hung up through lack of understanding what this means.  Even with the ordinance, if we sin, we lose this form of companionship until we repent.  It is not a vending machine type of relationship nor is it exclusive rights.  
 

Listing blessings received through the ordinance does not mean that the ordinance is the only way to receive those blessings just as many blessings received through marriage or parenthood are not exclusive to those, even if a few are.  
 

“the website isn't as kind as you are, is it” 

While I recognize that some members, perhaps many though in my own experience they are definitely not the majority, and even some leaders tend to have black and white, rigid, or even all or nothing type of thinking, that does not require our actual doctrine to be so rigid.

We have examples of leaders correcting past leaders (for example the Priesthood Ban and Adam-God) even if they are at times overly careful out of respect not to call out particular leaders when disavowing certain beliefs, so I don’t see a need to treat past leaders as authoritative when they contradict current teachings and/or scripture or even just logic.

Edited yesterday at 07:24 AM by Calm

[Calm]

In scripture…examples of people who were unlikely to have been baptized and received the ordinance of the Gift of the Holy Ghost (even if you assume they had an identical or even just comparable ordinance at the time), but are recognized by LDS as having some, if not many gifts of the Spirit:

The magi are recognized as having been inspired to seek out Christ.

Balaam, while not always in line with the Spirit I am guessing, still received revelation at times.  

Cornelius was not a Christian and yet was considered devout towards God, prayed to him and had an angel visit him before he was baptized.

Samuel the Lamanite was called as a prophet directly by God, but may not have been a member of the Nephite Church, which would explain why they hadn’t bothered to record his prophecies.  The Lamanites were said to be striving to live the law of Moses and some of them had been baptized in Helaman 5.  I am not sure we should assume they then set up the Church fully among the Lamanites, so that those converted could then baptize with authority.   I may be missing where it says that though.

Quote

Verily I say unto you, I commanded my servant Samuel the Lamanite, that he should testify unto this people, that at the day that the Father should glorify his name in me that there were many saints who should arise from the dead, and should appear unto many, and should minister unto them. And he said unto them: Was it not so?

10 And his disciples answered him and said: Yea, Lord, Samuel did prophesy according to thy words, and they were all fulfilled.

11 And Jesus said unto them: How be it that ye have not written this thing, that many saints did arise and appear unto many and did minister unto them?

12 And it came to pass that Nephi remembered that this thing had not been written.

13 And it came to pass that Jesus commanded that it should be written; therefore it was written according as he commanded.

14 And now it came to pass that when Jesus had expounded all the scriptures in one, which they had written, he commanded them that they should teach the things which he had expounded unto them.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/23?lang=eng

Joseph Smith received much revelation concerning multiple subjects prior to baptism and confirmation covenants.

It’s a popular doctrinal point that the Constitution is an inspired document and none of those involved had been confirmed or were in their lifetime.  God even speaks of raising up those involved in section 101.

”80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose,”

Apostles and prophets have quoted CS Lewis to explain doctrine many times.  If they don’t believe he was inspired by the Spirit, given spiritual knowledge, why would they do that when they have numerous quotes on tap from our own leaders and members?

We teach that God answers prayers of nonmembers just as he does members.  Surely there are many, many nonLDS who have prayed for personal revelation and for the presence of the Spirit.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2008/04/faith-of-our-father?lang=eng

Quote

Our Heavenly Father loves His children. He hears the prayers of the humble and sincere of every nation, tongue, and people. He grants light to those who seek and honor Him and are willing to obey His commandments. We joyously proclaim that the faith of our Father is on the earth today.

Incomplete (lacking fullness) does not mean absent.

Edited yesterday at 07:24 AM by Calm

[Calm]

We teach faith is a gift of the Spirit.  We also teach that faith as a principle must come before the ordinance of the Gift of the Holy Ghost (AoF 4) Logically this means that the Gift of the Holy Ghost is not the only gift of the Spirit.

Quote

3Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.

4There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. 5There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.

7Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues.  11All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.

 

https://www.bible.com/bible/111/1CO.12

Edited yesterday at 07:46 AM by Calm

[Navidad]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Incomplete (lacking fullness) does not mean absent.

First, thanks so very much for all the time you took to write these posts and in that sense, minister to me. I recognize that and appreciate it. I also recognize that of all LDS doctrines, this particular one is the most personally painful for me, so it is the hardest for me to "get over," "let go," or "ignore." To me, this doctrine of incompleteness is as or more symbolically violent as was the priesthood ban. I am incomplete; therefore, I am less than. I need to be made whole (complete). How does that happen? Baptism and confirmation into the LDS church and no other manner. The most basic and important tools of the Christian life are denied me. This past year I have very much needed the gifts of the Spirit. It has been an emotionally challenging time. I don't believe God has withheld them from me, waiting for me to become LDS. When I was a pastor and in desperate need of wisdom, I don't believe God withheld that from me, waiting for me to become LDS. 

I have often wondered what I would be like in the moments, hours, days, and months after being rebaptized and confirmed in the LDS Church. How would I be existentially spiritually different (more complete) than I am now?  In pragmatic reality. It is my personal truth that I observe and sense no difference between the average LDS Christian and the average non-LDS Christian in terms of evidence of fruit or gifts of the Spirit. How would the wonderfully godly Catholics on this forum be existentially and spiritually different as LDS Christians than they are now as they minister to each of us (LDS Christians and non-LDS Christians) via their wisdom? 

I have no doubt that Elder Uchtdorf is a wonderful and godly man. I enjoy his teachings and spirit, just like I did that of John R. W. Stott. Yet, like me, he has his own blind spots. I read through his talk several times. It seemed to me that in each case his belief is that the Faith of our Fathers is important because it leads people to become LDS, and therein to find fullness or completeness. Its purpose is singular in that regard: to make non-LDS Christians like me complete via baptism and confirmation in the LDS church. 

I am aware I bother you all with this "you are less than" and "you are incomplete" pain I feel from my LDS friends—far too often. I will do my best to simply be quiet about it. I don't want to lose the good will of my friends here. I have enough of my own blind spots to deal with. I certainly am not a "complete" Christian; probably far from it. I simply have an idea that as an LDS Christian I would most likely be just as "incomplete" as I am now. Thanks for your faithfulness.

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

To me, this doctrine of incompleteness is as or more symbolically violent as was the priesthood ban. I am incomplete; therefore, I am less than. I need to be made whole (complete). How does that happen? Baptism and confirmation into the LDS church and no other manner.

We all are incomplete in some ways even if we have all the ordinances and full participation in the LDS faith.  That is the cost of mortality and living in a fallen world.

Joseph Smith taught it would be a long while after our death till we comprehend these ordinances and principles we received in mortality.  Without actual full comprehension, how can we make full use of what God gives us to be transformed into the completeness he will welcome us into?  We are little children playing with God’s tools.  Of course, we are therefore incapable of using them as God uses them yet, but we still can practice and learn and become more familiar with what God has places before us.   

You may be more complete in areas that are more meaningful at this point to our ultimate purification and elevation by Christ than all the experiences ordinances provide.  The first and greatest commandment is to love God and the second is to love others.  We should not elevate the commandments to seek God’s ordinances above those, forgetting that the purpose of all that he gives us is to align our ability to love as he does so that not only we may have joy, but his other children will as well.  Given the vast majority of humanity will be given the ordinances in the next life without their salvation suffering in the least, seems like the purpose of mortality is less about receiving ordinances and more about learning to love and serve others.   

Should I feel less than because you have had spiritual experiences or the opportunities to serve others in much greater ways than myself, to show others God’s love…opportunities I have not been able to access because of my own good choices (it is good to be a mother, but that has limited what else I can do due to its cost to my health; it is good to be LDS, but there are only limited opportunities to devote one’s entire existence to pastoral service of others in our faith)?  Or should I be grateful that others have opportunities that I don’t so more of God’s work can be done even while I do the little bit he has given me the chance to participate with him in?