Kenngo1969 Posted April 16, 2012 Posted April 16, 2012 (edited) While I particularly welcome the input of the non-LDS religiously devout, you're welcome to comment whether you are (a) devout LDS, (b) skeptical/disaffected LDS, (c ) from another religious tradition, but not devout, or (d) not religious. Do you agree or disagree with this? Why or why not? (Am I simply "wresting" all of these scriptures? ) Could it help build bridges between Latter-day Saints and those of other faiths? Why or why not? Should I try to publish this elsewhere (on the FAIR Web site, perhaps), or should I consign it to my circular file? (While you're welcome to comment on the Blog itself, I spend much more time here than there.Happy reading, and thanks in advance for your input. http://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/toward-interreligious-oneness/ Edited April 16, 2012 by Kenngo1969
Kenngo1969 Posted April 16, 2012 Author Posted April 16, 2012 No link, ken.What, you can't read my mind? The link up there now should work. (It does for me, but maybe I have an impish poltergeist in my system ... )
Mudcat Posted April 16, 2012 Posted April 16, 2012 While I particularly welcome the input of the non-LDS religiously devout, you're welcome to comment whether you are (a) devout LDS, (b) skeptical/disaffected LDS, (c ) from another religious tradition, but not devout, or (d) not religious. Do you agree or disagree with this? Why or why not? (Am I simply "wresting" all of these scriptures? ) Could it help build bridges between Latter-day Saints and those of other faiths? Why or why not? Should I try to publish this elsewhere (on the FAIR Web site, perhaps), or should I consign it to my circular file? (While you're welcome to comment on the Blog itself, I spend much more time here than there.Happy reading, and thanks in advance for your input. http://greatgourdini...igious-oneness/I have always been partial to the parable of the sower Ken and I like your alternate interpretation better than the default LDS interpretation. The neat thing about the parables is that given their broadness, the reader feels compelled to discover where they fit into the narrative of it. My own thought on the parable is that our hearts are the ground in which the Gospel of Christ is sown.Though I think there is another level to the parable, in that all 4 situations are possibly representive within the heart of any believer. There are teachings we might disregard, teachings we choke out with our own sinful desires, teachings we apply for only a short time and drop the ball on later down the road and the teachings we let take root and foster. Maybe this is why some good ground is more fruitful than other good ground... just a thought there.However, on the notion of interreligous oneness. I think there is tremendous value to it in one respect and a precariousness to it in another.The net positive, is that it focuses us on the centricity and simplicity of Christ. It rightfully presents Him as the locus of our commonality. In a such a light, there is no boasting of the nature that one's beliefs are superlative to anothers, rather we approach each other as brothers and sisters in Christ. I think this is the best course in general. It is for Christ rather than for us to judge the heart of another. As you suggest, we should look to the fruit another produces and if it is evident, then trust that Christ is in it.It is also precarious because there are issues that we do feel rightfully seperate us from one another and perhaps in drawing closer together on things in common we also dilute the truth of those differences. There is a fine line there I think, one we don't always discern as well as we would like.Ultimately I think the determining factor in the value of such oneness, is by the fruit of it. I can't think of an instance though, in which LDS and other Christian faiths have come together on issues of humanitarian outreach, promoting common views and so forth that has been unfruitful.Regards,Mudcat 1
wenglund Posted April 16, 2012 Posted April 16, 2012 I think you made a lot of good, reasonably supported points worthy of consideration. Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Kenngo1969 Posted April 16, 2012 Author Posted April 16, 2012 (edited) I have always been partial to the parable of the sower Ken and I like your alternate interpretation better than the default LDS interpretation. The neat thing about the parables is that given their broadness, the reader feels compelled to discover where they fit into the narrative of it. My own thought on the parable is that our hearts are the ground in which the Gospel of Christ is sown.Though I think there is another level to the parable, in that all 4 situations are possibly representive within the heart of any believer. There are teachings we might disregard, teachings we choke out with our own sinful desires, teachings we apply for only a short time and drop the ball on later down the road and the teachings we let take root and foster. Maybe this is why some good ground is more fruitful than other good ground... just a thought there.I very much like your heart-as-earth/heart-as-ground analogy. The nice thing about it is, I believe, that we are all Christ's fellow gardeners: where the seed falls (or, as you say, the present condition of our hearts) need not be the end of the story. Challenging as it is, with His help, we can remove the thorns and rocks; we can fertilize, water, and till heretofore-poor-quality soil; we can plant the seeds which fall on the surface more deeply. When the seeds fall in less-than-optimal ground, we can follow the centurion's lead in response to the Savior's invitation, "If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth": "Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief"--"Help me till, fertilize, and water the soil of my heart." And uniquely-Mormon Holy Writ partners well with the Parable of the Sower in Alma chapter 32, in which Alma compares the word unto a seed and describes the process of partnering with The Master Gardener in greater detail.However, on the notion of interreligous oneness. I think there is tremendous value to it in one respect and a precariousness to it in another.The net positive, is that it focuses us on the centricity and simplicity of Christ. It rightfully presents Him as the locus of our commonality. In a such a light, there is no boasting of the nature that one's beliefs are superlative to anothers, rather we approach each other as brothers and sisters in Christ. I think this is the best course in general. It is for Christ rather than for us to judge the heart of another. As you suggest, we should look to the fruit another produces and if it is evident, then trust that Christ is in it.It is also precarious because there are issues that we do feel rightfully seperate us from one another and perhaps in drawing closer together on things in common we also dilute the truth of those differences.There is a fine line there I think, one we don't always discern as well as we would like.If you (along with all of your fellows who are willing to partner in good faith with Mormons in an effort to bless the lives of our brothers and sisters ... Mormon and non-Mormon alike) promise to decline to take offense at the fervent testimony of the Restoration in the opening paragraph of my essay, I promise not to take offense at any corresponding testimony you may share about matters upon which we may differ. I think it's incumbent upon members of both groups to take an approach similar to the Savior recommended to his apostles who forbade the man who "followed not them" from casting out devils: "Forbid him not, for he that is not against us is on our part."Ultimately I think the determining factor in the value of such oneness, is by the fruit of it. I can't think of an instance though, in which LDS and other Christian faiths have come together on issues of humanitarian outreach, promoting common views and so forth that has been unfruitful.Indeed. I sorrow only that some members of both groups too often are unwilling to partner on such issues on the basis of what I think is a misreading of scripture enjoining partnership with "unbelievers." Is the greater good that would be accomplished by such partnerships truly outweighed by that injunction? I doubt that it is. Edited April 16, 2012 by Kenngo1969 1
Kenngo1969 Posted April 16, 2012 Author Posted April 16, 2012 I think you made a lot of good, reasonably supported points worthy of consideration. Thanks, -Wade Englund-Thanks, Wade.
Cobalt-70 Posted April 16, 2012 Posted April 16, 2012 On the other hand, we get this in D&C 35:12 - And there are none that doeth good except those who are ready to receive the fulness of my gospel, which I have sent forth unto this generation.But to be precise, this verse does not exactly say that only Mormons do good. It says that the only people who do good are those who are "ready" to receive the "fulness of my gospel"--which around the time D&C 35 was written meant the rather Protestant doctrines found in the Book of Mormon, along with the Bible (see D&C 42:11). Protestant, Book of Mormon-era soteriology that people are inherently carnal, sensual, devilish, and depraved, and incapable of doing good until having been redeemed by Jesus. (See Mosiah 16:3, Alma 42:10, Moroni 7:24.) Also, Moroni 7:6, 10 says that even if an evil person does something which would be good if done by a righteous person, they are incapable of truly doing good because their underlying intention is evil. Counterintuitively, D&C 35 and other such scriptures make Mormon doctrine more Protestant than it otherwise would be. 1
blueadept Posted April 16, 2012 Posted April 16, 2012 So, works that are beneficial to others do not of themselves qualify as good works. .......So, it appears none do good except 1. they work by the power and gifts of God and 2. if they are outside of the Church, they are the people who accept when they hear it.That's the short short short version. 2
Kenngo1969 Posted April 16, 2012 Author Posted April 16, 2012 In the First Vision, the Lord told Joseph " the world lieth in sin and at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned asside from the gospel and keep not commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me and mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them acording to thir ungodliness and to bring to pass that which been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Apstles behold and lo I come quickly as it written of me in the cloud in the glory of my Father."It's true that there's a difference between professors of religion who say the right words and true adherents to religion who do the right things out of a genuine desire to please their Father in Heaven: "Not everyone that saith unto me 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter into the Kingdom of My Father, but he that doeth the will of my Father, which is in Heaven." You can't tell me there weren't nuns devoting their efforts to underprivileged kids somewhere in the world.No, I can't. And inasmuch as they do good, they shall in nowise lose their reward. You think that "the power that is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves" lies only in members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? I don't; to each, his own.What are good works, as the term is used scripturally?Moroni 10:25 - For if there be one among you that doeth good, he shall work by the power and gifts of God.So ... you think that "the power and gifts of God" are confined solely to those who exercise the Priesthood in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? I don't. If you read Moroni's writings in context, he addresses those who contend that "miracles are done away" and that God didn't give his power unto men because "he hath done his work." The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, and faith. There are plenty of good works wrought by these good fruits in the lives of people of varying faiths.So, works that are beneficial to others do not of themselves qualify as good works.True. One's heart must be pure, and one must do those works for God's glory rather than for one's own.On the other hand, we get this in D&C 35:12 - And there are none that doeth good except those who are ready to receive the fulness of my gospel, which I have sent forth unto this generation.So, it appears none do good except 1. they work by the power and gifts of God and 2. if they are outside of the Church, they are the people who accept when they hear it.Hmmm. If that's the case, I really don't know what to make of verses 8 and 9, then. Perhaps their superfluous. But before the Lord talks of those who receive His Gospel, he talks of people being able to do miracles by faith.That's the short short short version.And rather incomplete, I'd say. But, if you only want a sliver of the pie ...Here are the verses before the one you cite. Perhaps they will provide some context. Doctrine and Covenants 358 For I am God, and mine arm is not shortened; and I will show miracles, signs, and wonders, unto all those who believe on my name.9 And whoso shall ask it in my name in faith, they shall cast out devils; they shall heal the sick; they shall cause the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak, and the lame to walk.I value my membership in the Church of Jesus Christ and the Priesthood that I bear more highly than anything else I own. But there's no mention of church membership or priesthood in these verses ... just faith.If you want to try to go about preaching the Gospel by telling people, in essence, "Hey, I know you've got what you think is fish there, but it's actually kinda 'serpenty'; and I know you've got what you think are grapes and figs, but they're actually kinda thorny and thistly; and I know you've got what you think is bread there, but it's actually kinda stony," go right ahead. Have fun preaching "the gospel according to Log." As for me, I'll stick with President Hinckley's approach of inviting people to bring the good they have with them when they join the Church of Jesus Christ.For further research, may I recommend these? http://maxwellinstit...=6&num=2&id=150http://maxwellinstit...=5&num=2&id=123A relevant passage from the first:The mighty change of heart is that which is brought about by the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, available via the ordinance of confirmation.Anyways, all the best!Nothing you've referenced is necessarily at odds with my position. Just because you connect the dots in a certain way doesn't compel your readers to do likewise. It's entirely possible, however unlikely you may think it to be, Log, that even people outside the Church of Jesus Christ have hearts that are purer than yours, Log ... receipt of the Gift of the Holy Ghost notwithstanding. You sound like the Pharisees whom John the Baptist warns us against. You sound entirely too secure in your possession of "truth."And, our disagreement notwithstanding, the best to you as well. (Somehow I doubt this good will's gonna last, but we'll see ... ) 1
Kenngo1969 Posted April 16, 2012 Author Posted April 16, 2012 I suspect Log's position is quite in the minority among Latter-day Saints. I doubt he'd have much success preaching "The gospel According to Log" if he were to go about it in the manner he implies here. One of the first things I was taught as a missionary is respect for the beliefs and devotion of others and to build on common beliefs. Fortunately, the Lord is more charitable and longsuffering than Log makes him out to be.
blueadept Posted April 16, 2012 Posted April 16, 2012 I suspect Log's position is quite in the minority among Latter-day Saints. I doubt he'd have much success preaching "The gospel According to Log" if he were to go about it in the manner he implies here. One of the first things I was taught as a missionary is respect for the beliefs and devotion of others and to build on common beliefs. Fortunately, the Lord is more charitable and longsuffering than Log makes him out to be. I believe it's a given that the LDS missionaries try to understand what others say about their beliefs and then to build upon the common beliefs that we share My problem was always in how a few of my devout Catholic friends explained their faith to the LDS missionaries......
Log Posted April 16, 2012 Posted April 16, 2012 It's entirely possible, however unlikely you may think it to be, Log, that even people outside the Church of Jesus Christ have hearts that are purer than yours, Log ... receipt of the Gift of the Holy Ghost notwithstanding. You sound like the Pharisees whom John the Baptist warns us against. You sound entirely too secure in your possession of "truth."Well, thank you for this nugget of "good will."
Kenngo1969 Posted April 16, 2012 Author Posted April 16, 2012 (edited) Well, thank you for this nugget of "good will."Perhaps you're right. Perhaps I should have been more charitable. It's just that I think there are better ways to spread The Fire of the Spirit than with a flame-thrower and a scorched-earth policy. (With due respect, this is where I think you and your like-minded fellows are missing the boat: when it comes right down to it, there are only two things the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has that other faiths lack: (1) authority, and (2) concomitant ability to invite others to enter into saving covenants and to administer saving ordinances. We can make it endlessly more complicated than that, but when everything we have in common with other faiths and with their pure-hearted, devout adherents is stripped away, that's all that's left). Edited April 16, 2012 by Kenngo1969
Kenngo1969 Posted April 16, 2012 Author Posted April 16, 2012 I believe it's a given that the LDS missionaries try to understand what others say about their beliefs and then to build upon the common beliefs that we share My problem was always in how a few of my devout Catholic friends explained their faith to the LDS missionaries...... To be sure, there are a lot of misconceptions about Roman Catholicism, even among good Latter-day Saints.
Recommended Posts