"room For All Levels Of Belief" Sacrament Meeting Talk

[Damien the Leper]

Really.

I am VERY tired of so called "Christians" telling me I am not a Christian because I am a member of a different religion.

Well you know what? I AM a member of a different religion and therefore have absolutely ZERO need to believe ANY piece of doctrine or theology the way a religion I don't belong to does.

If we happen to agree on a point here or there that's great, but not required. I have no need to agree with other Christian religions.

Christianity is a religion. Mormonism, RCC, Orthodox, JW, SDA are all sects.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Really.

I am VERY tired of so called "Christians" telling me I am not a Christian because I am a member of a different religion.

Well you know what?  I AM a member of a different religion and therefore have absolutely ZERO need to believe ANY piece of doctrine or theology the way a religion I don't belong to does.

 

If we happen to agree on a point here or there that's great, but not required.  I have no need to agree with other Christian religions.

This dismissive attitude will only serve to further divide us from other Christians instead of recognizing and appreciating the brother/sisterhood we can enjoy with other who look to Christ for salvation and redemption.

Edited May 4, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[bluebell]

Yes, and I think the questions are somewhat vague and open on purpose. I would wager countless hours have been spent by those at the highest levels of the church, those that hold all the keys, on the exact wording of those questions. As for the reason they are worded as they are, I believe it is to allow the most possible people to be able to partake of the blessings of the temple.

 

I also agree that the questions are as vague as possible.  I wouldn't be surprised if they are vague for the same reason that parables are-so that we won't be held accountable for things we aren't ready for or don't understand correctly.

[ALarson]

Yes, and I think the questions are somewhat vague and open on purpose. I would wager countless hours have been spent by those at the highest levels of the church, those that hold all the keys, on the exact wording of those questions. As for the reason they are worded as they are, I believe it is to allow the most possible people to be able to partake of the blessings of the temple.

This is what I believe as well.  The only time I did not have a temple recommend was for a brief time that I was not attending church.  Other than that, I have always had an active recommend (and I was completely honest about my beliefs in the interviews).  

 

Those who are putting their own qualifiers on the recommend questions are just that, their own.  They are not part of the interview (at least the many I've been in).

[Boanerges]

This is what I believe as well.  The only time I did not have a temple recommend was for a brief time that I was not attending church.  Other than that, I have always had an active recommend (and I was completely honest about my beliefs in the interviews).  

 

Those who are putting their own qualifiers on the recommend questions are just that, their own.  They are not part of the interview (at least the many I've been in).

 

Agreed. I have sat on both sides of the table. The questions are what they are, and they ask what they ask. There are many, many things they don't ask - including Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and prayer. It is not anyone's place - on either side of the table - to add anything to those questions. As I said earlier, they were developed by prophets and apostles and I trust they know what they are doing. And I'll go further than that and say these men were acting as prophets, seers, and revelators in regard to the questions. If God intended them to ask about the Book of Mormon to enter His house, do you not think He would have them ask it?

[Mystery Meat]

Agreed. I have sat on both sides of the table. The questions are what they are, and they ask what they ask. There are many, many things they don't ask - including Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and prayer. It is not anyone's place - on either side of the table - to add anything to those questions. As I said earlier, they were developed by prophets and apostles and I trust they know what they are doing. And I'll go further than that and say these men were acting as prophets, seers, and revelators in regard to the questions. If God intended them to ask about the Book of Mormon to enter His house, do you not think He would have them ask it?

 

And what if they changed the questions to be more specific? Still acting as prophets, seers and revelators?

[HappyJackWagon]

 

And what if they changed the questions to be more specific? Still acting as prophets, seers and revelators?

IF they make changes to the TR questions then I will deal with it just like others will have to deal with it IF the Q15 change their position on gay marriage or female ordination.

"IF" is only good for mental exercises.

[Duncan]

"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?

 

 

it depends-I know a guy that on the High Council that told me he doesn't read the BOM anymore because "I know all the stories". Honestly if I heard him give a talk it would to me be phony and I just don't deal well with phonies.It would, to me, seem like Church is a game with people just saying nice words and trying to impress others and to me that's a waste of time.  I deal better with people who are trying or trying to be better. We just got a new Bishopric and our last Bishop, simply put didn't know much about the Church or the Gospel and he quit his calling after 3 years amidst a pile up of complaints. He's a nice guy and was on the High Council since the 1980's but it would appear when the rubber hit the road it just didn't work out. It's hard for me to follow people who don't lead or just come across as just an actor in a play and church is nothing more than a high school drama

[JLHPROF]

 

This dismissive attitude will only serve to further divide us from other Christians instead of recognizing and appreciating the brother/sisterhood we can enjoy with other who look to Christ for salvation and redemption.

 

Depending on your definition of "divide" I'm ok with that.

I am all for being brotherly/sisterly to all of God's children.  But I don't have to accept their religious beliefs as equally correct with my own, even if I at attempt to give them their right to their beliefs.

 

If this board is any indication (and I really hope it isn't) there are many members of the LDS Church who have little interest in Mormonism and are really looking for a more evangelical/traditional version of Christianity.  I'm just not one of them.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

it depends-I know a guy that on the High Council that told me he doesn't read the BOM anymore because "I know all the stories". Honestly if I heard him give a talk it would to me be phony and I just don't deal well with phonies.It would, to me, seem like Church is a game with people just saying nice words and trying to impress others and to me that's a waste of time.  I deal better with people who are trying or trying to be better. We just got a new Bishopric and our last Bishop, simply put didn't know much about the Church or the Gospel and he quit his calling after 3 years amidst a pile up of complaints. He's a nice guy and was on the High Council since the 1980's but it would appear when the rubber hit the road it just didn't work out. It's hard for me to follow people who don't lead or just come across as just an actor in a play and church is nothing more than a high school drama

Duncan, I understand what you're saying but I think you're making unfounded assumptions; ie that a person who doesn't have a literal belief in all aspects of the church must be a phony. I would argue that many function faithfully within the church without a literal belief.

Many people find great value in the church and teachings and scripture without having a literal belief in them. For example, a person can believe in many principles taught in the BoM without believing it to be an authentic ancient record translated by the power of God, just like they can believe in the principles taught in allegories or parables. Historical truth claims to not make a theology. Almost everyone agrees that Job was not a real person, yet most people would also agree that there are good lessons to learn from the story of Job.

Many serve faithfully despite having a confident testimony. For over 40 years Mother Teresa felt that she had been living in the dark night of the soul, not receiving answers to her questions, feeling like her prayers were hitting a ceiling. Could people have called her a phony because she lacked confidence that God was listening and answering her prayers or was she faithful by continuing to pray and serve the needy despite her doubts?

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Depending on your definition of "divide" I'm ok with that.

I am all for being brotherly/sisterly to all of God's children.  But I don't have to accept their religious beliefs as equally correct with my own, even if I at attempt to give them their right to their beliefs.

 

If this board is any indication (and I really hope it isn't) there are many members of the LDS Church who have little interest in Mormonism and are really looking for a more evangelical/traditional version of Christianity.  I'm just not one of them.

No one's asking you to accept other beliefs as equally correct. What I'm suggesting is that there's little benefit to focusing on the differences and dismissing them outright as a heathen because they are "traditional Christians". When we are constantly yelling "I'm not like them", the them's will certainly get offended and pride will destroy relationships needlessly. Non-Mormons have wonderful perspectives about Christianity. If we can't see that then we are blinded by pride.

[JLHPROF]

I never claimed you weren't Christian. Assuming that from my post shows how little you comprehended it.

I don't define Christ as parakletos. The scriptures do. Show me in the NT text that Jesus is defined as an administrator. This is an official CFR. An opinion of JS will not suffice.

 

I am under no obligation to answer this CFR.  You are asking me to prove from 1/4 of my religions texts an element that is part of your religion.  Nor do I have any desire to bicker over individual prooftexting in the NT (ie - I say the NT teaches that Christ held priesthood office/you say Christ did not hold priesthood office).  It gets us nowhere.

You say "the scriptures" but you limit which scriptures I can reference to less than 25% of my religious beliefs.  Why should I even attempt that.

 

For me, the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith are every bit as valid and scriptural as the NT doctrinally, and I have no reason to connect my beliefs in their entirety with the NT.  I don't have to so why ask me to.  I am not a NT alone believer.

[Mystery Meat]

 

No one's asking you to accept other beliefs as equally correct. What I'm suggesting is that there's little benefit to focusing on the differences and dismissing them outright as a heathen because they are "traditional Christians". When we are constantly yelling "I'm not like them", the them's will certainly get offended and pride will destroy relationships needlessly. Non-Mormons have wonderful perspectives about Christianity. If we can't see that then we are blinded by pride.

 

Sometimes it is good and needed to highlight differences.

[JLHPROF]

 

No one's asking you to accept other beliefs as equally correct. What I'm suggesting is that there's little benefit to focusing on the differences and dismissing them outright as a heathen because they are "traditional Christians". When we are constantly yelling "I'm not like them", the them's will certainly get offended and pride will destroy relationships needlessly. Non-Mormons have wonderful perspectives about Christianity. If we can't see that then we are blinded by pride.

 

I agree with all this, and I really am not trying to dismiss all other Christians.  Many of them are more Christlike that we are.

 

But I refuse to get drawn into:

- All ordinances are valid to God no matter what Church (as one poster said)

or

- Your beliefs are not the NT standard beliefs (right, they're not).

 

I see little benefit in arguing back and forth about something we already know.  I am a full follower of Mormonism as restored through Joseph Smith and systematized by Brigham Young and other early prophets and the fact that it doesn't agree with the interpretations of the NT by other Christians doesn't have any relationship to my beliefs.

But I love the faith and testimony of traditional Christians.  Their dedication is admirable and they will receive many blessings from God as a result.

Edited May 4, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Duncan]

 

Duncan, I understand what you're saying but I think you're making unfounded assumptions; ie that a person who doesn't have a literal belief in all aspects of the church must be a phony. I would argue that many function faithfully within the church without a literal belief.

Many people find great value in the church and teachings and scripture without having a literal belief in them. For example, a person can believe in many principles taught in the BoM without believing it to be an authentic ancient record translated by the power of God, just like they can believe in the principles taught in allegories or parables. Historical truth claims to not make a theology. Almost everyone agrees that Job was not a real person, yet most people would also agree that there are good lessons to learn from the story of Job.

Many serve faithfully despite having a confident testimony. For over 40 years Mother Teresa felt that she had been living in the dark night of the soul, not receiving answers to her questions, feeling like her prayers were hitting a ceiling. Could people have called her a phony because she lacked confidence that God was listening and answering her prayers or was she faithful by continuing to pray and serve the needy despite her doubts?

 

 

but it's the apathy, people who don't care about Religion that I would say are phonies, Church is a nice thing to do and a social aspect. Mother Theresa, sounds like was praying and trying and keeping doing her calling but I just have a problem with people that it's not genuine. it's the people that church is their calling and not spirituality. Am I supposed to take advice from someone who thinks the name of the President of the Church is Theodore? If people don't believe various things at least they know about it and not the apathetic

[Damien the Leper]

I am under no obligation to answer this CFR. You are asking me to prove from 1/4 of my religions texts an element that is part of your religion. Nor do I have any desire to bicker over individual prooftexting in the NT (ie - I say the NT teaches that Christ held priesthood office/you say Christ did not hold priesthood office). It gets us nowhere.

You say "the scriptures" but you limit which scriptures I can reference to less than 25% of my religious beliefs. Why should I even attempt that.

For me, the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith are every bit as valid and scriptural as the NT doctrinally, and I have no reason to connect my beliefs in their entirety with the NT. I don't have to so why ask me to. I am not a NT alone believer.

Fine. Lets broaden the scope. Using the entire standard works, show me where Christ is described as administrator. Not alluded to, not implied. JS opinion is of no concern to me. If you choose to use either of the OT or NT then please provide the source word in its original language and the etymological history.

JS describing Christ is no different than Pat Robertson doing so.

To be clear, the CFR still stands. As LDS institutes of religion teach, talks or conversations by prophets are not scripture. Gotta keep this clean and tidy.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Valentinus

[JLHPROF]

Fine. Lets broaden the scope. Using the entire standard works, show me where Christ is described as administrator. Not alluded to, not implied. JS opinion is of no concern to me. If you choose to use either of the OT or NT then please provide the source word in its original language and the etymological history.

 

You are still asking me to prove a belief that I take from the teachings of the prophets, not scripture.  But I will do my best.

Just to be clear, not all of my beliefs are laid out 100% in scripture.  They don't contradict scripture, but they are not all clearly found there either.

 

Fairmormon talks about this - http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_priesthood/What_does_the_Bible_teach

 

Priesthood authority from God

So how can we tell true teachers? First, they will have authority (priesthood) directly from God. Christ was given the priesthood authority from God the Father.

For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; 27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. (John 5:26-27.)

The works that Christ performed were by this priesthood authority:

And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him. (Mark 1:27)

Christ passed on this very same authority to His apostles.

1 THEN he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases. 2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick. (Luke 9:1-2)

This authority is necessary in order to preach the gospel.

And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach (Mark 3:14) (emphasis added) Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. (Acts 1:22)(emphasis added) Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. (1 Timothy 2:7)

 

 

Christ is described as a High Priest (an administrative office)

 

Hebrews 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

 

Christ administers the sacrament (as a priest does)

 

Luke 22:17-20

And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:

For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

 

Christ administers in other ordinances

 

John 13:4-8

He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself.

After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.

Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet?

Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter.

Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.

[Damien the Leper]

You failed to define how you were using administrator. CFR for Christ's official ordination to high priest. You're not doing a good job of defending your position.

[JLHPROF]

You failed to define how you were using administrator. CFR for Christ's official ordination to high priest. You're not doing a good job of defending your position.

 

Administrator  = one with authority from God to administer in the ordinances of the gospel.

 

As for Christ's ordination - no idea.  But John 5:27 states God gave him his authority (which means there was a time before he was given it).

 

And to be clear, I've already pointedly refused to "defend my position" to one outside of my faith structure because it's a pointless exercise.  We don't accept the same truth sources so I could never convince you of anything even if I was of a mind to argue minutia.

Edited May 5, 2015 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

Christianity is a religion. Mormonism, RCC, Orthodox, JW, SDA are all sects.

 

Disagree.

 

Mormonism is its own religion with its own sects.  Our belief in Christ is at its center but it is no more limited to the events of Christ's life/teachings/ministry than it is to this earth.

 

TBH, if I was in a really combative mood I'd argue that truthfully, I believe (in my personal belief system) that so-called "Mormonism" encompasses Judaism and Christianity, not the other way round.  Fortunately, I'm not feeling that combative.

[Mystery Meat]

Disagree.

 

Mormonism is its own religion with its own sects.  Our belief in Christ is at its center but it is no more limited to the events of Christ's life/teachings/ministry than it is to this earth.

 

TBH, if I was in a really combative mood I'd argue that truthfully, I believe (in my personal belief system) that so-called "Mormonism" encompasses Judaism and Christianity, not the other way round.  Fortunately, I'm not feeling that combative.

 

And you would be right as time will show.

[Calm]

"Fortunately, I'm not feeling that combative. "

I've got to give you a point just for using that emoticon, I see it so rarely.

I am not sure encompasses is the right word since there are some things in both groups we disagree with. I do believe the LDS faith is built on the foundation of truth within both.

Edited May 5, 2015 by calmoriah

[JLHPROF]

"Fortunately, I'm not feeling that combative. "

I've got to give you a point just for using that emoticon, I see it so rarely.

I am not sure encompasses is the right word since there are some things in both groups we disagree with. I do believe the LDS faith is built on the foundation of truth within both.

 

I see where you are coming from, but when I say encompasses Judaism and Christianity I am referring to the elements of both that were given from God, not the things that have crept into both over the centuries.

[mfbukowski]

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.  

Oh yeah.

 

Can't let those semi-converted people in!  They are just not up to our level of perfection!

 

Don't let them publicans and sinners in here.  Since we don't have inspired leadership, they might get right past those stupid bishops and pollute the temple.  Heck the sinners might even become bishops themselves!

 

Then God would leave the temple and the good people would not be able to go to heaven.  Can't let that happen!

 

I know that is not exactly what you meant, but that is the first thing that flashed through my mind.

 

If you can honestly pass a temple recommend interview, you are a "member in full fellowship".   It might be a good idea to leave the judgment up to God

[mfbukowski]

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.

The issue would be authority