"room For All Levels Of Belief" Sacrament Meeting Talk

[Mystery Meat]

So quite literally, if the Cathothic chuch asked the exact same questions, you would be justified in being a sustaining member of both?

 

This is confusing to me.

 

Me too. I don't have any stewardship so I won't rush to judgment. But I would have a hard time with his answer if I were in that role as I thinks it avoids the Spirit of the question.

[bluebell]

So quite literally, if the Cathothic chuch asked the exact same questions, you would be justified in being a sustaining member of both?

This is confusing to me.

No judgement meant, but I'm confused as well.

[Senator]

Me too. I don't have any stewardship so I won't rush to judgment. But I would have a hard time with his answer if I were in that role as I thinks it avoids the Spirit of the question.

 

His statement below, I suppose, is the million dollar question, which I believe to be intent of the initial query of the recommend question.

 

"Admittedly, this is very different than sustaining him as God's literal, 1 chosen mouthpiece holding the 1 priesthood etc"

[teddyaware]

I just got home from attending our Sacrament meeting and from hearing one of the best talks I've ever heard!

 

The speaker (on direction from our Bishop) spoke on the theme that "All Are Welcome Here".  It was based on the teachings of Jesus Christ and his love for all mankind.  At one point the Bishop even looked directly at me with a sort of "wink and a smile".  He and I are great friends and he knows that I am not longer a literal believer in the Mormon Church but that I still have a great love for the church and for the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

The speaker also brought up the "new" church essays and how we will be discussing them in the coming joint sessions (5th Sundays) in our ward under direction from the Stake President who is implementing this in the wards within our stake.  Again, great news.

 

I spoke with the Bishop after the meeting and he said that with so many members coming to him with questions and doubts, he wants to do all he can to keep them attending and to let them know they are loved.  We already have an informal group that discusses the essays that I'm involved in (along with one of the counselors in the bishopric).

 

Anyway, I love my Bishop, love my ward, and love the gospel of Jesus Christ!!!  It was a good day at church for me

 

If it becomes widespread, the Church is going to have to be extremely careful how this approach toward acceptance of semi-apostasy is implemented, as such a practice has the very real potential to become a dual-edged sword that could prove to be much more destructive than beneficial. Think about it: If the devil wanted to orchestrate a plan for massive apostasy within the Church, what more clever and effective means could he employ to achieve his nefarious goal than to normalize and even eventually embrace a widespread acceptance of unbelief among a significant portion of the membership toward many of the Restored Gospel's absolutely essential components, and this whole soul-destroying strategy would be accomplished under the persuasive and disarming banner of "brotherly love" and "Christlike compassion." This diabolically careful and beguiling strategy would be much more effective than a blatantly obvious "frontal assault" attempt to get the members to flat out leave the Church all at once and end up on the outside looking in. Think Troy...

 

Now I'm not saying there isn't some wise way to effectively and safely receive and keep semi-believers in the Church with the goal that many of them will eventually regain vibrant testimonies of the entire Restored Gospel; but if great care isn't taken to avoid the obvious pitfalls, filling the ranks of the Church with genuinely friendly, kindhearted and PERSUASIVE semi-believers could become a prescription for disaster. One of the ways to know if the effort to reach out to the semi-converted is going awry will be if such folks are treated as members in full-fellowship who are permitted to enter the temple and hold presiding leadership positions.  

Edited May 4, 2015 by teddyaware

[stemelbow]

So quite literally, if the Cathothic chuch asked the exact same questions, you would be justified in being a sustaining member of both?

 

This is confusing to me.

I'm more confused by your question. He didn't mention The Catholic Church, so I'm not sure how you got his support for her.

But, I would say, it raises another question for me, can someone support both the Catholic and Mormon Churches? I think it's possible.

[stemelbow]

His statement below, I suppose, is the million dollar question, which I believe to be intent of the initial query of the recommend question.

 

"Admittedly, this is very different than sustaining him as God's literal, 1 chosen mouthpiece holding the 1 priesthood etc"

Meh...I assume God works on many people and uses plenty of well-known good-hearted people to speak His truths. I'm not sure there is any reason to feel concern over what he said. But, admittedly, I'm pretty unorthodox myself.

[bluebell]

I'm more confused by your question. He didn't mention The Catholic Church, so I'm not sure how you got his support for her.

But, I would say, it raises another question for me, can someone support both the Catholic and Mormon Churches? I think it's possible.

He's not saying that happy does sustain the pope, only that, using his definition of what it means to sustain the prophet, if someone asked him whether or not he sustained the pope his answer would be yes.

If the temple recommend question about sustaining only means whether or not we believe that someone has the right to make decisions for and lead the church they are the leader of, then most if not everyone, whether Mormon or not, sustains the prophet as well as every other church leader in the world, regardless of denomination.

[thesometimesaint]

I just got home from attending our Sacrament meeting and from hearing one of the best talks I've ever heard!

 

The speaker (on direction from our Bishop) spoke on the theme that "All Are Welcome Here".  It was based on the teachings of Jesus Christ and his love for all mankind.  At one point the Bishop even looked directly at me with a sort of "wink and a smile".  He and I are great friends and he knows that I am not longer a literal believer in the Mormon Church but that I still have a great love for the church and for the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

The speaker also brought up the "new" church essays and how we will be discussing them in the coming joint sessions (5th Sundays) in our ward under direction from the Stake President who is implementing this in the wards within our stake.  Again, great news.

 

I spoke with the Bishop after the meeting and he said that with so many members coming to him with questions and doubts, he wants to do all he can to keep them attending and to let them know they are loved.  We already have an informal group that discusses the essays that I'm involved in (along with one of the counselors in the bishopric).

 

Anyway, I love my Bishop, love my ward, and love the gospel of Jesus Christ!!!  It was a good day at church for me

 

I'm not a believer in the Mormon Church either. I'm a member of that other church; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

So quite literally, if the Cathothic chuch asked the exact same questions, you would be justified in being a sustaining member of both?

 

This is confusing to me.

 

In that way, yes, I would sustain the Pope as Arch Bishop of Rome and the ultimate authority for the Catholic church. I don't see any problem with that.

As to the arguments about the "intent" of the question: It is not a question of testimony. It is a question of support and sustaining and I can sustain him as the prophet, seer and revelator because I know he has been ordained within the priesthood of the church such by those in the church who held authority to do so. In this same way I can sustain my Bishop or Stake President, not because I "know" they were literally chosen by God, but because I know that those who chose them to serve had authority to do so.

I hope that helps with some of the confusion.

Edited May 4, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[ALarson]

 

 

In that way, yes, I would sustain the Pope as Arch Bishop of Rome and the ultimate authority for the Catholic church. I don't see any problem with that.

As to the arguments about the "intent" of the question: It is not a question of testimony. It is a question of support and sustaining and I can sustain him as the prophet, seer and revelator because I know he has been ordained within the priesthood of the church such by those in the church who held authority to do so. In this same way I can sustain my Bishop or Stake President, not because I "know" they were literally chosen by God, but because I know that those who chose them to serve had authority to do so.

This is the exact conversation I had with my Bishop and Stake President.  It expresses my feelings about those called to lead the Mormon church as well (and you did a better job at expressing it, HappyJackWagon )

[Duncan]

So quite literally, if the Cathothic chuch asked the exact same questions, you would be justified in being a sustaining member of both?

 

This is confusing to me.

 

 

There is a guy on our High Council here that attends the Catholic Church with his wife, he is supposed to be teaching us at priesthood leadership this saturday, about missionary work. If it goes like it has in the past, he'll get someone else to do it and he'll just sit there or leave. How he accomplishes all this is beyond me but his life not mine

Edited May 4, 2015 by Duncan

[hope_for_things]

That's great, and I don't mean to make this personal. I have always been curious as to how individuals who claim to not believe this is only true church, square with the church's claim the president of the church is the only one to hold the keys of the priesthood and the exercise there of.

 

I think my approach is similar to ALarson, and I appreciate what he shared above, great progress at the local level. 

 

Here is how I answer that question in my mind:  President Monson is the only person on earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys. I define the priesthood as unique to the LDS church, or in other words it’s the LDS priesthood.  

 

·  Does this mean that God can’t work with other humans in other religions?  No. 

·  Does this mean that LDS ordinances are the only ordinances that God considers efficacious?  No. 

·  Does this mean that President Monson is the only person who can authorize the use of the LDS church’s priesthood authority?  Yes

 

I’m ok with validating that other church’s have access to God and access to God’s power in their lives.  This is how I answer this question and I feel comfortable with my position.  I’m not in a position to judge whether one religion’s ordinance is efficacious or not.  Don’t we also believe that the Holy Spirit of Promise has to ratify each covenant in order for it to be valid in God’s sight?  God will be the ultimate judge and I tend to think that God’s measurement for judging validity will be based on the heart and sincerity of the person.  

[Senator]

 

As to the arguments about the "intent" of the question: It is not a question of testimony.

 

Well question #1 is about testimony, and I don't see how question #1 and question #2 can be answered independent of each other.

[stemelbow]

He's not saying that happy does sustain the pope, only that, using his definition of what it means to sustain the prophet, if someone asked him whether or not he sustained the pope his answer would be yes.

Are we supposed to unsustain the Pope? The difference is, I presume, Happy is not in the Catholic Church. Thus, he has no obligation to do what the Pope proposes, nor support doctrines and practices to put out by the Pope. In that way, it made little sense to me, and largely because I agreed with what Happy said in his response.

If the temple recommend question about sustaining only means whether or not we believe that someone has the right to make decisions for and lead the church they are the leader of, then most if not everyone, whether Mormon or not, sustains the prophet as well as every other church leader in the world, regardless of denomination.

And that's a problem or something? Sounds fine to me. if some non-affiliated person thinks That Monson is the right man for his job, that's no problem to me. That's probably a good thing.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Well question #1 is about testimony, and I don't see how question #1 and question #2 can be answered independent of each other.

 

I'm not sure how you're numbering these questions.

Q 1-3 are testimony questions of orthodoxy; Godhead, Atonement, restoration

The rest of the questions regard orthopraxy. There is nothing in the sustaining question that requires my testimony of what it means to be a prophet, seer and revelator to match with anyone elses testimony. It's a question of behavior, not belief.

If your question is about how the testimony question of the restoration ties into the question of sustaining, that is a different issue. I can walk you through my approach if you're interested.

[thesometimesaint]

I think my approach is similar to ALarson, and I appreciate what he shared above, great progress at the local level. 

 

Here is how I answer that question in my mind:  President Monson is the only person on earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys. I define the priesthood as unique to the LDS church, or in other words it’s the LDS priesthood.  

 

·  Does this mean that God can’t work with other humans in other religions?  No. 

·  Does this mean that LDS ordinances are the only ordinances that God considers efficacious?  No. 

·  Does this mean that President Monson is the only person who can authorize the use of the LDS church’s priesthood authority?  Yes

 

I’m ok with validating that other church’s have access to God and access to God’s power in their lives.  This is how I answer this question and I feel comfortable with my position.  I’m not in a position to judge whether one religion’s ordinance is efficacious or not.  Don’t we also believe that the Holy Spirit of Promise has to ratify each covenant in order for it to be valid in God’s sight?  God will be the ultimate judge and I tend to think that God’s measurement for judging validity will be based on the heart and sincerity of the person.  

 

I think that lack of judgement can be drawn too far. I don't expect that a Catholic would consider a LDS baptism efficacious with God. But I do expect a LDS to consider it so.

 

I think there is more to validity than just a persons heart and sincerity. IE; If I put on a lab coat, put a stethoscope around my neck, and really sincerely felt I was a MD would the state give me a medical license?

[Senator]

 

 

If your question is about how the testimony question of the restoration ties into the question of sustaining, that is a different issue. I can walk you through my approach if you're interested.

 

Yes, that's what I'm driving at.

[JLHPROF]

 

President Monson is the only person on earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys.

Sure.

 

I define the priesthood as unique to the LDS church, or in other words it’s the LDS priesthood.  

Wordplay.  There is only one priesthood (authority to act in God's name).

 

·  Does this mean that God can’t work with other humans in other religions?  No. 

 

True

·  Does this mean that LDS ordinances are the only ordinances that God considers efficacious?  No. 

False

·  Does this mean that President Monson is the only person who can authorize the use of the LDS church’s priesthood authority?  Yes

Wordplay again.

 

[hope_for_things]

I think that lack of judgement can be drawn too far. I don't expect that a Catholic would consider a LDS baptism efficacious with God. But I do expect a LDS to consider it so.

 

I think there is more to validity than just a persons heart and sincerity. IE; If I put on a lab coat, put a stethoscope around my neck, and really sincerely felt I was a MD would the state give me a medical license?

 

The Lord looketh on the heart.  I just don't think that God cares about legality, his ways aren't our ways.  I think sincerity and heart are all that matter, and I think that is one of the central elements of the message of Jesus.  

[Senator]

·  Does this mean that LDS ordinances are the only ordinances that God considers efficacious?  No. 

 

 

This I believe to be incompatible with Q # 2

[Mormonmaniac]

Yes.  And when you say that I don't believe in "the Mormon church", that's not true.  It's not an "all or nothing".

 

I believe that the church does a great deal of good today and I also believe in many of their teachings.  I just don't believe it is the one and only "true" church.  There are many churches on earth that are based on the teachings of Jesus Christ (community churches and otherwise), but I'm a multi-generational Mormon (from both sides), my wife and many members of my family are active members.  I am Mormon.

 

What does it even mean when members say "I know this church is true"?  Yes, it contains truths, but many of the teachings even from past Prophets are not considered to be true.  I do have issues with many of the past teachings and practices, and I believe that past leaders have made mistakes.  That doesn't mean that I think they were bad men or that I "don't believe in the Mormon church".

I believe there are a lot of churches that are "true" in the sense that they are trying to follow Christ's teachings. I think we get conditioned as a society and as sects and churches, organizations, etc, to say certain phrases that are common but not necessarily correct. When someone bears their tesimony it should be based on their beliefs of what they hope to be true. That all common phrase "I know this church is true" is one of those phrases that we just say and not so much realize or know what we are saying. Unless they have a recieved an absolute sure answer where faith is dismissed then it cant be a sure knowledge. I think it is more proper to say "I believe this church is true". And as you say- true in what sense? I find it interesting that nowhere in the scriptures is that phrase found. In the Book of Mormon, prophets testify of the truthfulness of the gospel and Jesus Christ, not their church they belong to. When I bear my testimony I try real hard to testify of belief and truth but careful nt to confuse the two. I may say "I know that the family is the fundamental unit of society" and then tell how I "know" this. I think we tend to worship "the church" rather than God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ. I like hearing testimony where people speak about Christ and the gospel and leave "the church" as some entity by itself out of the equation.

[Boanerges]

Well question #1 is about testimony, and I don't see how question #1 and question #2 can be answered independent of each other.

 

Why not? Although they are asked consecutively in the TR interview they are not necessarily related. The questions could be asked independently. If I am asked if I have a testimony of God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ and of the Holy Ghost I can most assuredly answer yes (even though I don't believe God hears and answers prayers or necessarily knows each of us). If I am asked if I have a testimony of Christ, the atonement and his role as Savior I can also answer most assuredly yes (although I don't pretend to understand how it works).

 

I'm not sure how those two tie into the question at hand, and like HJW, if you want me to walk you through 3 & 4 I will - but the answers are very similar to 1 & 2. There are always unspoken caveats to my answers because the questions require only a yes or no. I can answer yes, I do believe the gospel has been restored (I don't believe it was ever fully lost) and I do believe Joseph Smith was a prophet (although that is not explicitly asked). I do sustain (support) Pres. Monson as the authorized leader of the church and as the one authorized to exercise all the keys. Likewise, i sustain his 14 (or so) colleagues as prophets, seers, and revelators (although I don't believe they do much of either of those things, they can). As others have said, and as a former Catholic who is probably still on the roles of the church, I could likewise sustain the pope as leader of the Catholic church - that is his job and I support him in it (and as a side note, I do believe he is as capable as anyone else of receiving revelation).

 

Finally, my SP also understands many of my views and is very supportive of me and others like me - enough so that I am a high councilor. He does espouse the "testimony doesn't have to be this high to enter" mentality, as do I.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Boanerges

[HappyJackWagon]

"One of the ways to know if the effort to reach out to the semi-converted is going awry will be if such folks are treated as members in full-fellowship who are permitted to enter the temple and hold presiding leadership positions."

Every single one of us are somewhere along the vast continuum of perfect orthodoxy to complete apostacy. Your level of comfort with the unorthodox might be different than mine but in God's view the difference may only be a matter of inches along an entire football field length continuum or orthodoxy-apostacy.

ETA- there are many past and current bishops, high councilors, EQ Presidents etc that would be considered leaders yet still have temple recommends and serve despite their unorthodox beliefs. Is that service meaningless? Is the church doomed because of it?

Edited May 4, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[Boanerges]

This I believe to be incompatible with Q # 2

 

I don't see anything about ordinances in question 2. I believe most of my Christian friends can answer that question affirmatively, and some of them seem to have a stronger testimony of it than many of my LDS friends.

[hope_for_things]

 

 

President Monson is the only person on earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys.

Sure.

 

I define the priesthood as unique to the LDS church, or in other words it’s the LDS priesthood.  

Wordplay.  There is only one priesthood (authority to act in God's name).

 

·  Does this mean that God can’t work with other humans in other religions?  No. 

 

True

·  Does this mean that LDS ordinances are the only ordinances that God considers efficacious?  No. 

False

·  Does this mean that President Monson is the only person who can authorize the use of the LDS church’s priesthood authority?  Yes

Wordplay again.

 

 

If you think that LDS ordinances are the only efficacious ones, that’s fine.  I don’t agree, and I don’t see God as being that limited in nature.  As the Given’s so often like to point out from D&C 49:8, there are “other holy men that ye know not of.”  Now I realize the Joseph also didn’t accept baptismal ordinances from other churches as valid, but that doesn’t mean Joseph always was consistent with applying these principles.  The principle that resonates with me is that God loves all creation and I don’t find a whole lot of value in us trying to judge who has authority and who’s ordinances are valid.  We’re all trying our best!