"room For All Levels Of Belief" Sacrament Meeting Talk

[Gray]

My reference was not in relation to wussies, but to debunk the whole notion of pluralism as a feel good doctrine of man that has no lasting consequence or divine sanction.

 

The passage in Luke 9 is a great scripture. But it does nothing to support pluralism. We don't know who the man was. But we do know he didn't hold any priesthood keys.

 

That's a presentist reinterpretation of Luke. And I understand that LDS notions of priesthood keys require presentism to function, and so I understand why you interpret it that way. But it's unlikely to reflect the intended meaning of Luke 9. There was no single Christian church until centuries after Jesus' time. 

 

What is Jesus quoted as having said regarding someone who was not an "ordained" disciple who was performing what we'd call priesthood ordinances? Let him alone. If he's not against you, he is with you. That sounds like pluralism to me. 

 

If you object to things that bring a sense of peace (ie "feel good), what can be your philosophy? If it feels bad, do it?  In my experience, ecclesiasticism appeals to the ego, but offers no lasting peace. 

Edited May 6, 2015 by Gray

[hope_for_things]

What is the purpose of sacraments or ordinances?

I think there is something about ritual, and covenants that helps us connect to the divine.  If I make a commitment to this concept of God (regardless if my perspective reflects reality or not) and then regularly go through sacraments to remind myself of that commitment, then I’ll yield fruit from this practice.  Kind of like your placebo example. 

 

The concern lies in what kind of fruit we get from participating in ordinances and sacraments.  If our focus is on principles like the golden rule and charity, then we will yield the fruit of increased emphasis on those principles and in my opinion this is good fruit for the individual and society. 

 

If our focus is on pharisaical ideals like strict rules, authoritative backing, superiority of doctrine, etc, then I think we’ll yield the fruit of that kind of a focus.  This fruit may have some benefits, I can concede that, but I think as a whole to focus on these elements gets us looking beyond the mark and missing the central and most important components of the gospel.  

[Tacenda]

Again we really have become a society and generation of wussies.

 

Do I believe Mormon doctrine, practices, beliefs, ordinances, rights, covenants, etc. are better than other religions' practices, beliefs, ordinances, rights, covenants, etc.?

 

You are darn right I do. If I didn't I wouldn't be a member of the LDS faith. Somewhere along the way making such a state became arrogant or even audacious. There is nothing arrogant about it. While I don't believe Mormonology has a monopoly on truth or the influence of the Holy Spirit, I do believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a monopoly on God's sacred authority. There are good people every where who are trying their best. There is even value in other religious practices and beliefs. Yet, making a strong claim for the veracity of priesthood authority is somehow now arrogant or conceited. Are we that fragile as a society that such a claim is going to hurt someone's feelings? I went to school with a lot Catholics, Jews and Evangelicals. They think what we do in the Church lacks efficacy. Why should that hurt my feelings? That is their right to maintain such a belief. And these same people are some of my best friends. I am attending one of their weddings in a few days.

 

Yet when we, as members of the "ONLY TRUE AND LIVING CHURCH", make a bold claim we are given statements such as:

 

 

(tell that to the Lord)

 

OR

 

 

Guess what, ours is better than the rest. Wanna know why its better? Because its not ours. Its God's. That is our message. That is why we have missionaries. It is better because it has real, lasting and eternal significance. It is better because it comes directly from God, not man, and He has directly commanded it. In short ours is better, because it is true. That does not mean that people who aren't LDS are terrible people. That does not mean they are stupid or should be pitied. Shoot, I will even say it doesn't mean other folks won't qualify for the Celestial Kingdom (but they will have to receive and accept these very same ordinances that are better than what they have now if they want to dwell with God). But if declaring truth as it has been revealed by God hurts people's feelings, well then I suppose we are in the good company of men (and women) who have hurt many feelings throughout the history of man by declaring God's Holy and Revealed word.

 

/sidetrackrant

What if somewhere tells you that your belief is false and they know it. And that you are following a false God? Are you going to be indignant to them? Because that's how they feel when we tell them they have no authority.

[hope_for_things]

Guess what, ours is better than the rest. Wanna know why its better? Because its not ours. Its God's. That is our message. That is why we have missionaries. It is better because it has real, lasting and eternal significance. It is better because it comes directly from God, not man, and He has directly commanded it. In short ours is better, because it is true. That does not mean that people who aren't LDS are terrible people. That does not mean they are stupid or should be pitied. Shoot, I will even say it doesn't mean other folks won't qualify for the Celestial Kingdom (but they will have to receive and accept these very same ordinances that are better than what they have now if they want to dwell with God). But if declaring truth as it has been revealed by God hurts people's feelings, well then I suppose we are in the good company of men (and women) who have hurt many feelings throughout the history of man by declaring God's Holy and Revealed word.

I can understand your perspective, because I’ve been there in the past.  My perspective has changed, significantly and dramatically.  I would like to ask you some questions. 

 

Does God care more about who’s right or does God care more about what’s right?  How does a focus on exclusivity and proper authority help someone to love their neighbor, succor those that stand in need, and bare one another’s burdens?    Would you cast us out, or look down on us for our differing perspectives?   What’s more important, rooting out heresies and maintaining this definition of doctrinal purity, or building bridges and learning from others who’s opinions differ from your own?  

[Calm]

"I can understand your perspective, because I’ve been there in the past."

I have always found this no matter who it comes from to be a rather arrogant, patronizing and to be blunt and probably rude, uninformed claim, especially when made with such minimal knowledge of a person's perspective as able to be presented in posts on a message board. It assumes a perspective has no significant unique nuances that will alter it from the claimant's own previously held beliefs, it assumes that background and experience has no significant impact on interpretation and it assumes an position of more or less omniscience regarding the other. It is dismissive of the other's comments as easily grasped by simply imposing one's own ideas previously held on to that person.

From what I've observed, no one has ever been in the same position as another, not even siblings or identical twins. Perspectives when examined in detail always have a flavour unique to the individual.

Edited May 6, 2015 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

I think there is something about ritual, and covenants that helps us connect to the divine. If I make a commitment to this concept of God (regardless if my perspective reflects reality or not) and then regularly go through sacraments to remind myself of that commitment, then I’ll yield fruit from this practice. Kind of like your placebo example.

The concern lies in what kind of fruit we get from participating in ordinances and sacraments. If our focus is on principles like the golden rule and charity, then we will yield the fruit of increased emphasis on those principles and in my opinion this is good fruit for the individual and society.

If our focus is on pharisaical ideals like strict rules, authoritative backing, superiority of doctrine, etc, then I think we’ll yield the fruit of that kind of a focus. This fruit may have some benefits, I can concede that, but I think as a whole to focus on these elements gets us looking beyond the mark and missing the central and most important components of the gospel.

Why does the ritual help? Is it because you believe God blesses you for performing the ritual?

No trap here, I agree with you so far

Surely God can bless you without the ritual. Why does the ritual help?

Edited May 6, 2015 by mfbukowski

[hope_for_things]

Why does the ritual help? Is it because you believe God blesses you for performing the ritual?

No trap here, I agree with you so far

Surely God can bless you without the ritual. Why does the ritual help?

Good question, I’m thinking because it allows a person to focus on goals and desires.  It reminds us of our commitments and lets us think about our place in the eternal scheme of things. 

 

I’m not too familiar with eastern religious practices of meditation, but I kind of think there is something meaningful about physically going through a ritual and how that centers a person’s mind and body.  I also think there is a group and community element to these ordinances, commitments to others providing a sense of belonging. 

 

God can bless me without the ritual, I agree.  I can’t make a definitive case that ritual is absolutely necessary, but I do find value in ritual and its part of my tradition.  I enjoy the temple for how it gets me out of my every day worries and gets me to contemplate eternity.  I also enjoy the connection I feel with my ancestors and the human family. 

[hope_for_things]

"I can understand your perspective, because I’ve been there in the past."

I have always found this no matter who it comes from to be a rather arrogant, patronizing and to be blunt and probably rude, uninformed claim, especially when made with such minimal knowledge of a person's perspective as able to be presented in posts on a message board. It assumes a perspective has no significant unique nuances that will alter it from the claimant's own previously held beliefs, it assumes that background and experience has no significant impact on interpretation and it assumes an position of more or less omniscience regarding the other. It is dismissive of the other's comments as easily grasped by simply imposing one's own ideas previously held on to that person.

From what I've observed, no one has ever been in the same position as another, not even siblings or identical twins. Perspectives when examined in detail always have a flavour unique to the individual.

 

Sounds like I struck a nerve with that statement.  I’m new here, and you’re a seasoned member.  I meant no arrogance or disrespect with that statement.  I do try to understand the perspectives of others, and I was trying to acknowledge the validity of the other while also sharing my thoughts.  I meant no judgment about the other person’s ability to have nuanced or well thought out beliefs.  I guess I was simply trying to state that I can sympathize with this POV.  

[Mystery Meat]

What if somewhere tells you that your belief is false and they know it. And that you are following a false God? Are you going to be indignant to them? Because that's how they feel when we tell them they have no authority.

 

Why would I be indignant? I have been told that multiple times. That is my point. Why do people have such thin skin?

[Mystery Meat]

I can understand your perspective, because I’ve been there in the past.  My perspective has changed, significantly and dramatically.  I would like to ask you some questions. 

 

Does God care more about who’s right or does God care more about what’s right?  How does a focus on exclusivity and proper authority help someone to love their neighbor, succor those that stand in need, and bare one another’s burdens?    Would you cast us out, or look down on us for our differing perspectives?   What’s more important, rooting out heresies and maintaining this definition of doctrinal purity, or building bridges and learning from others who’s opinions differ from your own?  

 

Setting aside the patronizing tone, God cares about truth immensely. Therefore, I find it hard to imagine there is little distinction between, as you put it, "who's right" and "what's right". I don't agree with your implied statement that I am focusing on exclusivity. We are commanded to be in the world, but not of the world (I think the idea of pluralism is a doctrine of the world). Having proper authority can help us immensely in serving everyone. The greatest service we can do for another person in this life is to introduce them to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

And why in the world would I cast people out for having an opinion from mine? I have never said anything of the sort. In this very thread I have said repeatedly that I think there should always be a place within our ranks for people of all sorts of beliefs and opinions. I do not look down on anyone who has different views. You seem to be implying a lot of arrogance on my part (and while I am sure I have my fair share of pride) because I subscribe to the the words of Jesus that this is THE ONLY TRUE AND LIVING CHURCH. And yes I think that matters.

 

Your final question involves a whole lot of assumptions on your part that are simply flawed. If what you are asking is: is it better to be correct on everything or to be disciple of Christ? Then the answer is obvious; I will take the latter (fortunately I don't think we are forced to choose one over the other). But I don't think that is what is really going on. What you are seemingly proposing is that we ditch the claim of THE ONLY TRUE AND LIVING CHURCH in order not to hurt others feelings. That I think would be catastrophic to us and to the world. We have a charge to preach the message. If building bridges comes at the cost of remaining true to the light and knowledge we have been given from God, then I absolutely think God would want us to remain true to the knowledge and light he has given us.

[JLHPROF]

Period, so let it be written, so let it be done.  Feels good to be on the winning team, and that all those other sorry saps aren’t!   

 

If that's the motivation you ascribe to me, boy have you got it wrong.

God has said where his authority and ordinances are.  It has nothing to do with winning.  It's not a competition as the true ordinances are available to all who will meet the requirements.

 

If any ordinance would suffice then work for the dead would be completely unnecessary.  All will have to opportunity to accept the ordinances that God approves as valid or to reject them.  Other ordinances are of no efficacy.  That's not pride, that's what God has said.

[Gray]

Good question, I’m thinking because it allows a person to focus on goals and desires.  It reminds us of our commitments and lets us think about our place in the eternal scheme of things. 

 

I’m not too familiar with eastern religious practices of meditation, but I kind of think there is something meaningful about physically going through a ritual and how that centers a person’s mind and body.  I also think there is a group and community element to these ordinances, commitments to others providing a sense of belonging. 

 

God can bless me without the ritual, I agree.  I can’t make a definitive case that ritual is absolutely necessary, but I do find value in ritual and its part of my tradition.  I enjoy the temple for how it gets me out of my every day worries and gets me to contemplate eternity.  I also enjoy the connection I feel with my ancestors and the human family. 

 

Sounds like we're on the same page regarding rituals

[Calm]

Sounds like I struck a nerve with that statement. 

 

I see it usually used as a less obvious way to say "I used to believe what you believed, now I know better" in gospel settings, in nongospel settings "I've solved the problem, I don't need to listen to your ideas, you need to listen to mine"...followed by a lecture.

Edited May 6, 2015 by calmoriah

[JLHPROF]

Sounds like we're on the same page regarding rituals

 

Jesus: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Gray & hope_for_things: God can bless me without the ritual

Jesus: If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Gray & hope_for_things: You mean you really require this ritual to save us?  You can't just save us anyway?

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

Gray & hope_for_things: I can’t make a definitive case that ritual is absolutely necessary, but I do find value in ritual and its part of my tradition.

Jesus:   

[Gray]

Jesus: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Gray & hope_for_things: God can bless me without the ritual

Jesus: If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Gray & hope_for_things: You mean you really require this ritual to save us?  You can't just save us anyway?

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

Gray & hope_for_things: I can’t make a definitive case that ritual is absolutely necessary, but I do find value in ritual and its part of my tradition.

Jesus: 

 

 

As you know, I don't believe that scripture of necessity is an accurate rendering of any past event or saying, nor am I a literalist. But even assuming Jesus said those things, I can play along:

 

Jesus: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

JLHPROF: Not without an endowment! Besides, everyone is saved, the goal is to become exalted. 

Jesus: If ye love me, keep my commandments.

JLHPROF: Except the ones about divorce and swearing oaths, those don't matter

Jesus: For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

JLHPROF:    Not true, marriage is eternal!

 

 

That is assuming that you hold orthodox views on these issues, which may or may not be true.

 

Just playing along with your prooftexting game, JLHPROF. No offense is intended.

[hope_for_things]

God cares about truth immensely.... We are commanded to be in the world, but not of the world (I think the idea of pluralism is a doctrine of the world). 

Agreed that God cares about truth, and that we should carefully consider ideas to discern value.  How do we discern whether something is from God or not?  Is our interpretation of the scriptures always the Godly interpretation?  Do the English words in our 2015 scriptural canon perfectly express God’s mind and will?  Personally, I have less confidence in my ability with my human flaws to proclaim what is God’s truth and what isn’t.  

 

 

And why in the world would I cast people out for having an opinion from mine? I have never said anything of the sort. In this very thread I have said repeatedly that I think there should always be a place within our ranks for people of all sorts of beliefs and opinions. I do not look down on anyone who has different views. You seem to be implying a lot of arrogance on my part (and while I am sure I have my fair share of pride) because I subscribe to the the words of Jesus that this is THE ONLY TRUE AND LIVING CHURCH. And yes I think that matters.

Ok, you didn’t say anything about casting people out, that was too far on my part, sorry.  Help me understand this one though.  How is thinking that the LDS church is the only true and living church, not an arrogant position?   Dictionary for arrogant – “making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights”  

 

 

Your final question involves a whole lot of assumptions on your part that are simply flawed. If what you are asking is: is it better to be correct on everything or to be disciple of Christ? Then the answer is obvious; I will take the latter (fortunately I don't think we are forced to choose one over the other). 

I agree that discipleship is most important.

 

What you are seemingly proposing is that we ditch the claim of THE ONLY TRUE AND LIVING CHURCH in order not to hurt others feelings. That I think would be catastrophic to us and to the world. We have a charge to preach the message. If building bridges comes at the cost of remaining true to the light and knowledge we have been given from God, then I absolutely think God would want us to remain true to the knowledge and light he has given us.

 

 

This is a false dichotomy.  You can ditch the one and only true church claim and still have the charge to preach the gospel to the world.  We have a portion of truth (ongoing restoration), bring your truths and combine them with ours.  I believe the evolution of the missionary message should be centered around what the gospel can do for a person and how it can change lives.  Not because it’s got the exclusive stamp of God’s authoritative approval, I don’t find that element compelling, but because God loves everyone and wants them to know it.  I’m not worried about hurting feelings so much as I am worried about alienating people from giving the gospel a chance to enlighten and uplift.  I just believe in a big tent gospel, come join with us as Elder Uchtdoft articulated.  

[Mystery Meat]

 

Agreed that God cares about truth, and that we should carefully consider ideas to discern value.  How do we discern whether something is from God or not?  Is our interpretation of the scriptures always the Godly interpretation?  Do the English words in our 2015 scriptural canon perfectly express God’s mind and will?  Personally, I have less confidence in my ability with my human flaws to proclaim what is God’s truth and what isn’t.  

 

 

Ok, you didn’t say anything about casting people out, that was too far on my part, sorry.  Help me understand this one though.  How is thinking that the LDS church is the only true and living church, not an arrogant position?   Dictionary for arrogant – “making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights”  

 

 

 

I agree that discipleship is most important.

 

 

 

This is a false dichotomy.  You can ditch the one and only true church claim and still have the charge to preach the gospel to the world.  We have a portion of truth (ongoing restoration), bring your truths and combine them with ours.  I believe the evolution of the missionary message should be centered around what the gospel can do for a person and how it can change lives.  Not because it’s got the exclusive stamp of God’s authoritative approval, I don’t find that element compelling, but because God loves everyone and wants them to know it.  I’m not worried about hurting feelings so much as I am worried about alienating people from giving the gospel a chance to enlighten and uplift.  I just believe in a big tent gospel, come join with us as Elder Uchtdoft articulated.  

 

 

In LDS theology we believe that it was Christ who called this the ONLY TRUE AND LIVING CHURCH. His words. Quoted directly from latter-day scripture. What other word's of the Savior would you have us eliminate?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

In LDS theology we believe that it was Christ who called this the ONLY TRUE AND LIVING CHURCH. His words. Quoted directly from latter-day scripture. What other word's of the Savior would you have us eliminate?

 

He called the church, as organized at the time, that. ALL the churches claim to be the church of that reference. So a Temple Loter would say, "He is not talking about your church, he is talking about my church."

[Mystery Meat]

 

He called the church, as organized at the time, that. ALL the churches claim to be the church of that reference. So a Temple Loter would say, "He is not talking about your church, he is talking about my church."

 

I have no problem with them believing that. I believe they are wrong in their belief and that the keys of the priesthood went exclusively to Salt Lake. I think if you are a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints it would be difficult to believe otherwise.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I have no problem with them believing that. I believe they are wrong in their belief and that the keys of the priesthood went exclusively to Salt Lake. I think if you are a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints it would be difficult to believe otherwise.

 

And it is the same for them and the others. But maybe our traditions and things that are "difficult to believe" are just that... traditions. I believe they are. I believe the walls our forefathers cast up between each other were wrong. I believe baptismal authority and the call to gather Israel are still in effect among the churches of the Restoration. When we can preach the Gospel and gather the people to Zion, the LORD can take care of what doctrines we got wrong or right. But I know I am a lone voice is this and the Saints will continue being at odds, and condemning the others for their "apostasy". It makes me sad.

[JLHPROF]

As you know, I don't believe that scripture of necessity is an accurate rendering of any past event or saying, nor am I a literalist. But even assuming Jesus said those things, I can play along:

 

Jesus: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

JLHPROF: Not without an endowment! Besides, everyone is saved, the goal is to become exalted. 

Jesus: If ye love me, keep my commandments.

JLHPROF: Except the ones about divorce and swearing oaths, those don't matter

Jesus: For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

JLHPROF:    Not true, marriage is eternal!

 

 

That is assuming that you hold orthodox views on these issues, which may or may not be true.

 

Just playing along with your prooftexting game, JLHPROF. No offense is intended.

 

Oh Gray, you and I know each other well enough at this point that I never assume offense.

 

Your first doesn't exactly get my position on salvation.  You are right that I believe an endowment is necessary for exaltation (as does the Church).  But of course I agree with Christ that all that is needed for salvation in the Celestial Kingdom is Baptism.

 

Your second assumes I don't agree with all of Christ's commandments.  Where have I ever said that?  Christ said no divorce (except for specific reasons) and I would agree.  Same for swearing oaths.  I try not to disagree with my Savior.

 

And your 3rd has been explained away by a million apologists so I see no reason to touch it.

 

The difference is I believe in doing what Christ is recorded as commanding.  That includes when he says ritual is needed.

[Gray]

In LDS theology we believe that it was Christ who called this the ONLY TRUE AND LIVING CHURCH. His words. Quoted directly from latter-day scripture. What other word's of the Savior would you have us eliminate?

 

All scripture must come through imperfect human vessels, no matter how inspired one considers it to be. There is no such thing as a direct quote from God. IMO

Edited May 6, 2015 by Gray

[JLHPROF]

All scripture must come through imperfect human vessels, no matter how inspired one considers it to be. There is no such thing as a direct quote from God. IMO

 

Quick...let's edit all the scriptures to read "Thus we think the Lord means..."

[hope_for_things]

Quick...let's edit all the scriptures to read "Thus we think the Lord means..."

 

Actually, yes, that’s a start.  Not only that, we should recognize that scripture contains cultural and personal bias, poetry, politics, legend, myth, error, and truth all at the same time.  Scripture is beautiful and alarming and much more complex than it sometimes gets credit for.  

[bluebell]

Actually, yes, that’s a start. Not only that, we should recognize that scripture contains cultural and personal bias, poetry, politics, legend, myth, error, and truth all at the same time. Scripture is beautiful and alarming and much more complex than it sometimes gets credit for.

So scripture and almost every blog post ever written are pretty much the same thing?