Disciples of Christ or Disciples of Church

[HappyJackWagon]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course I never said that.

All will have the opportunity. Your distortions speak for themselves.

Delaying, not denying baptism is the best solution. Those who never heard of Christ will have the exact same opportunities as we all have.

 

Perhaps it isn't what you meant but it's exactly what you said. And you said it to try to justify why children are denied the same opportunities as other children to receive baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. You seem to act like it is no big deal. That's fine, but logically that would suggest you don't see much benefit for a child to receive those ordinances or have the companionship of the Holy Ghost age 8-18.

The policy is obscene. It bastardizes and denigrates the gospel of Jesus Christ into a subservient appendage to the administration of the church and the cultural bigotry of the leaders. I'm confident the policy will be gone one day. Meanwhile, great damage is done as ordinary members have to accest intolerance just to be in lockstep with the policy and leadership.

Poster removed for inflammatory language. Disagree respectfully.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Perhaps it isn't what you meant but it's exactly what you said. And you said it to try to justify why children are denied the same opportunities as other children to receive baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. You seem to act like it is no big deal. That's fine, but logically that would suggest you don't see much benefit for a child to receive those ordinances or have the companionship of the Holy Ghost age 8-18.

That's how I read Mark's comments, too. But then I'm all about distortion.  

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The policy is obscene. It bastardizes and denigrates the gospel of Jesus Christ into a subservient appendage to the administration of the church and the cultural bigotry of the leaders. I'm confident the policy will be gone one day. Meanwhile, great damage is done as ordinary members have to accest intolerance just to be in lockstep with the policy and leadership.

I hope it changes. When the policy became public, it changed how I viewed church leaders. Until then, I never thought they would intentionally divide families and hurt children. I still can't quite wrap my head around it. I don't think there was evil intent behind the policy, but it damages family relationships with no discernible upside, IMO.

[Gray]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

What is unique about choosing to participate in a covenant relationship that has been defined by God as an abomination?  (I am using the term "abomination" because polygamy is labeled that in Jacob and homosexual sex, which is essentially intended to be sanctified through marriage just as heterosexual sex is, in Leviticus not because I think either are repulsive or more sinful than adultery or fornication, but because I think there is a quality to sins that God labels "abomination" that sets them apart.  Also  I don't think one can even measure how "sinful" a sin is, what is seen as trivial---gossip perhaps---may actually be what causes a soul to rot in hell longer than any who sin through polygamy or homosexual marrage.)

In both cases those participating are taking a relationship (marriage) that God has appointed to mankind as an essential part of exaltation---it may even be the most fundamental and ultimate aspect of exaltation*** the joining of man and woman to become God---and instead using it to justify sin.

***I believe all who enter the CK are promised to be one with God so exaltation may be something that allows us to experience that oneness in a new, more full way or it may be that the nonexalted only experience a partial oneness because without exaltation, without being part of the man-woman god union---the divine pair, they cannot fully comprehend the experience of being God.

Abomination is one way it has been translated to English. From what I understand the meaning of the word toevah is something closer to "taboo".  Which would explain its use to describe the eating of shellfish and other "unclean" animals. 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

The free gift of the Atonement is salvation from physical death. Sanctification from sin by the cleansing power of the Atonement is available only through the covenant of baptism. From the LDS Bible Dictionary:

So, yes, the unconditional part of the Atonement (resurrection) applies to all, whether baptized or not. The conditional part (salvation from sin) does not apply to those who have not entered into the covenant. This is basic doctrine, but when I said it, you called it "false," so I asked for clarification. You replied with a link to a conference talk outlining the basic doctrine I had just given. 

Actually, I've just been outlining basic LDS doctrine, not jumping from subject to subject. According to church doctrine, the Holy Ghost can and does testify to nonmembers. What I said was that, according to all I've ever been taught in the church. the "the companionship of the Holy Ghost" is crucial in guiding young people through the trials and temptations of life. Such companionship is not available to those who have not received the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. Again, from the Bible Dictionary:

This is, again, basic church doctrine, which you labeled "false." When I asked you to clarify, you provided a link to a conference talk that outlined the same basic doctrine.  

In summary, those who do not enter into the covenant of baptism and receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands do not have access to the sanctifying power of the Atonement and the companionship of the Holy Ghost. All my life I have been taught that these two blessings are crucial to navigating the trials and temptations of life. I am surprised that you think these doctrines are "false" and "with no basis," at least when they come from me. 

That is not what it says.

The atonement quote says nothing about baptism or the church, it says "gospel".  In fact it says the atonement makes ordinances possible therefore placing the atonement as a prior condition for baptism to even exist. Furthermore all will have the opportunity for baptism, and delaying it in this case is for the benefit of the child, to avoid the confusion produced by condemning the parents lifestyle 

Non members are guided by the light of Christ and the Holy Ghost as needed to find the truth, or there could be no converts. So of course youth have guidance and the ability to receive personal revelation prior to baptism.

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

That is not what it says.

The atonement quote says nothing about baptism or the church, it says "gospel".  In fact it says the atonement makes ordinances possible therefore placing the atonement as a prior condition for baptism to even exist. Furthermore all will have the opportunity for baptism, and delaying it in this case is for the benefit of the child, to avoid the confusion produced by condemning the parents lifestyle 

Non members are guided by the light of Christ and the Holy Ghost as needed to find the truth, or there could be no converts. So of course youth have guidance and the ability to receive personal revelation prior to baptism.

So the gift of the HG is superfluous because the light of Christ and occasional guidance will give youth what they need.

Why not just make 18 the standard age for baptism since it doesn't really matter otherwise. At that point legal adults can adequately study and make their decisions. I hear this question asked quite a bit but I never hear an answer. If 18 is good enough for the children of gays, why not for everyone else?

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So the gift of the HG is superfluous because the light of Christ and occasional guidance will give youth what they need.

Why not just make 18 the standard age for baptism since it doesn't really matter otherwise. At that point legal adults can adequately study and make their decisions. I hear this question asked quite a bit but I never hear an answer. If 18 is good enough for the children of gays, why not for everyone else?

Fine with me. 

[jkwilliams]

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

That is not what it says.

The atonement quote says nothing about baptism or the church, it says "gospel".  In fact it says the atonement makes ordinances possible therefore placing the atonement as a prior condition for baptism to even exist. Furthermore all will have the opportunity for baptism, and delaying it in this case is for the benefit of the child, to avoid the confusion produced by condemning the parents lifestyle 

Non members are guided by the light of Christ and the Holy Ghost as needed to find the truth, or there could be no converts. So of course youth have guidance and the ability to receive personal revelation prior to baptism.

Maybe we're just talking past each other (wouldn't be the first time).

We seem to agree that the doctrine of the church is that the power of the Holy Ghost can guide nonmembers to truth. The gift of the Holy Ghost, however, is much more than that, and is closely tied to the covenant of baptism, which is why they are done at the same time. Again from the Bible Dictionary:

Quote

Baptism in water has several purposes. It is for the remission of sins, for membership in the Church, and for entrance into the celestial kingdom; it is also the doorway to personal sanctification when followed by the reception of the Holy Ghost.

Two things are important here:

1. Baptism is for the remission of sins, which comes by covenant through the Atonement. Through baptism, a person becomes "justified" before the Lord. 
2. Sanctification comes only by receiving the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. Unlike those who are not baptized, those who receive this "gift of the Holy Ghost" are eligible to have the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. The baptism of fire is, in LDS doctrine, literally the purging of the soul of sin, as if by fire. 

Quote

 

A definition of sanctification also helps point out that there is something more when a person can qualify for the fire of the Holy Spirit and endure to the end. “Sanctification is the work of the Holy Spirit by which he who is justified is enabled to keep the Commandments of God and grow in holiness (see Hel. 3:35).” 

Sanctification comes from heaven and only comes as the Holy Ghost begins to work within a person. In some instances, people seem to grow into these blessings. Sometimes the glimmer of the Spirit is enough to lead people to baptism, but they can falter if they do not cultivate the gift and fire of the Spirit that has been bestowed upon them. (Loren C. Dunn, "Fire and the Holy Ghost," Ensign, June 1995).

 

For more on the differences between justification and sanctification, see D. Todd Christofferson, "Justification and Sanctificaton," Ensign, June 2001.

Note that the ordinances of baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost are required for both justification and sanctification. What I think you are trying to say is that God can and does bless those who are not members of the church and does not abandon them when they sincerely desire His help. Obviously, we agree on that. The issue for me is that there are, doctrinally speaking, some very important blessings that only pertain to those who have entered into the covenant and partaken of the ordinances of the gospel. What you seem to be saying is that those blessings can and should be put off in certain circumstances without any effect on the person for whom they are delayed. I disagree with that. 

And it does get tiring to have you wave everything off as distortions. Just saying.

[mfbukowski]

THIS was your statement.   I said it was a "drive by"   Now you are saying all the nuanced stuff above and I am the one who is "DISTORTING?"

Waiting for the usual apology

21 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Yup. The cleansing power of the Atonement and the companionship of the Holy Ghost are crucial to help guide young people as they grow up and face increasing temptations, unless of course their parents are gay. 

Edited August 11, 2016 by mfbukowski

[jkwilliams]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

THIS was your statement

Yes it was. It may have been a little flippant, but it's how I see it, and it is in line with church doctrine. Why would I apologize for saying what I think? 

For the record, I never said you distorted anything, just disagreed with your characterization of my post as false and without basis. 

Edited August 11, 2016 by jkwilliams

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Perhaps it isn't what you meant but it's exactly what you said. And you said it to try to justify why children are denied the same opportunities as other children to receive baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. You seem to act like it is no big deal. That's fine, but logically that would suggest you don't see much benefit for a child to receive those ordinances or have the companionship of the Holy Ghost age 8-18.

The policy is obscene. It bastardizes and denigrates the gospel of Jesus Christ into a subservient appendage to the administration of the church and the cultural bigotry of the leaders. I'm confident the policy will be gone one day. Meanwhile, great damage is done as ordinary members have to accest intolerance just to be in lockstep with the policy and leadership.

Poster removed for inflammatory language. Disagree respectfully.

I know you have been banned from the thread, so I will not carry this further, but let anyone interested look back and see what I actually said near the bottom of page 2, that the atonement and inspiration by the Holy Ghost are available to all.  I stand by that statement and always will.  Yes there are nuances- but I wasn't talking about that- the question is whether or not children of gay parents can receive inspiration or forgiveness of sins through the atonement without being members.   I shall always assert that they will, and that these blessings are available to all- if nothing else then at least in the spirit world.  I cannot imagine how that is even debatable.

Happy I suggest you start another thread if you want to carry this on, but I will still assert it as I have stated it.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

I know you have been banned from the thread, so I will not carry this further, but let anyone interested look back and see what I actually said near the bottom of page 2, that the atonement and inspiration by the Holy Ghost are available to all.  I stand by that statement and always will.  Yes there are nuances- but I wasn't talking about that- the question is whether or not children of gay parents can receive inspiration or forgiveness of sins through the atonement without being members.   I shall always assert that they will, and that these blessings are available to all- if nothing else then at least in the spirit world.  I cannot imagine how that is even debatable.

Happy I suggest you start another thread if you want to carry this on, but I will still assert it as I have stated it.

That isn't what you said, and that wasn't the question. I said pretty clearly that, as I was always taught, the blessings of the Atonement and the companionship of the Holy Ghost are crucial for young people to navigate their growing-up years, and these blessings are available only through the covenant of baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost. You said that was "false" and "without basis." No, it's basic church doctrine. 

[mfbukowski]

35 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yes it was. It may have been a little flippant, but it's how I see it, and it is in line with church doctrine. Why would I apologize for saying what I think? 

For the record, I never said you distorted anything, just disagreed with your characterization of my post as false and without basis. 

I have never asked for you to apologize for anything, but you often do so anyway.  THAT is what i was anticipating.   I am glad you do not need to do that in this instance.  No offense taken- for me these are always discussions about the logic of doctrine.  I get emotional when that is distorted, as I see it, in my opinion, but I do not take any of this personally.

I think it is important to NOT take this personally, and I do not think you are personally "evil" though it seems that you think I think that.  I DO think you are often mistaken and have a highly different perception of church doctrine than I do.  You take a much stricter interpretation than I do and that is our major difference.  I see the gospel as more merciful than I think you do, but of course i cannot read your mind  Your interpretations seem more authoritarian than mine, at least that is how it appears to me

Edited August 11, 2016 by mfbukowski

[jkwilliams]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

I have never asked for you to apologize for anything, but you usually so anyway.  THAT is what i was anticipating.   I am glad you do not need to do that in this instance.

My parents taught me to apologize when I do wrong to others. Is that a bad thing? If you don't believe an apology from me is ever sincere, there's nothing I can do about that.

[rodheadlee]

21 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Yup. The cleansing power of the Atonement and the companionship of the Holy Ghost are crucial to help guide young people as they grow up and face increasing temptations, unless of course their parents are gay. 

yeah, heaven forbid if their parents sacrifice their lust for someone of the same sex for the betterment of their children so they sacrifice their children to the god of SSm

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

yeah, heaven forbid if their parents sacrifice their lust for someone of the same sex for the betterment of their children so they sacrifice their children to the god of SSm

I suppose that's one way to look at it, but you seem to agree that the result is the "sacrifice" of blessings for those children. I think that's pretty obvious.

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

My parents taught me to apologize when I do wrong to others. Is that a bad thing? If you don't believe an apology from me is ever sincere, there's nothing I can do about that.

Gosh John, that was highly defensive and not necessary.  I never said apologies were  bad thing.

Let the record stand as it is

[jkwilliams]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

Gosh John, that was highly defensive and not necessary.  I never said apologies were  bad thing.

Let the record stand as it is

Yeah, I probably overreacted to your snarky statement about "the usual apology." No worries.

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I suppose that's one way to look at it, but you seem to agree that the result is the "sacrifice" of blessings for those children. I think that's pretty obvious.

"Sacrifice their children"

vs

"sacrifice of blessings for those children"

And you see those as the same meaning?

Words are important John.  One is about children, the other is about blessings

Big difference

[mfbukowski]

OK 

I'm done.

Everyone else who wants it gets the last word.   I should learn to follow Blair's example and stop acting like Trump with every comment

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So the gift of the HG is superfluous because the light of Christ and occasional guidance will give youth what they need.

Why not just make 18 the standard age for baptism since it doesn't really matter otherwise. At that point legal adults can adequately study and make their decisions. I hear this question asked quite a bit but I never hear an answer. If 18 is good enough for the children of gays, why not for everyone else?

Because God said otherwise.

[jkwilliams]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I have never asked for you to apologize for anything, but you often do so anyway.  THAT is what i was anticipating.   I am glad you do not need to do that in this instance.  No offense taken- for me these are always discussions about the logic of doctrine.  I get emotional when that is distorted, as I see it, in my opinion, but I do not take any of this personally.

For the record, I have not distorted any church doctrines in this discussion. I stated clearly what I think--and it was in line with church doctrine--and you labeled it as false and without basis. When I tried to get you to clarify, you simply posted links to conference talks. When I went into detail about the doctrines and how they apply (you know, because I thought it might actually help us understand each other), you just waved it off as "nuanced stuff" and then made a crack about apologies. I'm not offended, just, as always, frustrated that we can't seem to have a conversation that doesn't start off with an attack, as this one did.

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I think it is important to NOT take this personally, and I do not think you are personally "evil" though it seems that you think I think that.  

I have never thought you honestly believed I am evil, but I do think you believe I am motivated by a desire to tear down the church and convince people to leave it. That's not the case. I don't think you're evil, just way too quick to attack. Like you, I get defensive and emotional when people attack me, but I really try not to be the aggressor. I fail sometimes, and too often I let people bait me into responding inappropriately. Of course, that's the goal for some people, isn't it? 

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I DO think you are often mistaken and have a highly different perception of church doctrine than I do. You take a much stricter interpretation than I do and that is our major difference.  I see the gospel as more merciful than I think you do, but of course i cannot read your mind  Your interpretations seem more authoritarian than mine, at least that is how it appears to me

I don't think the gospel is unmerciful at all. Not sure why you think that. I do think this policy is unnecessarily hurtful to family relationships and unjustly denies blessings to children, which of course was my point. As for believing the church is authoritarian, I think you believe that personal revelation trumps the authority of church leaders, and I would agree with you. I just don't think the church sees it that way, necessarily. There is always going to be a limit to personal spiritual autonomy in the church, and that limit is when your personal spiritual experience tells you to disobey priesthood authority. Obviously, people deal with that tension in different ways, but I think it's silly to deny that it ever exists.

[jkwilliams]

55 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

"Sacrifice their children"

vs

"sacrifice of blessings for those children"

And you see those as the same meaning?

Words are important John.  One is about children, the other is about blessings

Big difference

In what way, then, do you think they are sacrificing their children? I don't think rodheadlee was arguing for literal sacrifice but that these parents were happy to deny their kids the blessings of the gospel in order to satisfy their sexual desires.

Words do matter. Please don't put words in my mouth and say I ever said God cannot forgive sins unless someone is baptized. I never said anything like that. 

Edited August 11, 2016 by jkwilliams

[mfbukowski]

34 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

In what way, then, do you think they are sacrificing their children? I don't think rodheadlee was arguing for literal sacrifice but that these parents were happy to deny their kids the blessings of the gospel in order to satisfy their sexual desires.

Words do matter. Please don't put words in my mouth and say I ever said God cannot forgive sins unless someone is baptized. I never said anything like that. 

I don't know what he was saying- ask him

I was just pointing out that you did not see what the words actually said.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

I don't know what he was saying- ask him

I was just pointing out that you did not see what the words actually said.

I really don't appreciate you starting an entire thread to attack an assertion I never made. Words do matter, indeed.

[smac97]

On 8/9/2016 at 10:18 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

I had a friend recently ask if modern Mormons are disciples of Christ or disciples of the Church.

That seems a bit like asking if Protestants are disciples of Christ or disciples of The Bible.

Quote

While I feel this is a false dichotomy it raises an interesting question for me.

The 4th article of faith reads.

There are many scriptures to support the teaching that having faith in Christ is foundational. There is no real virtue of having faith in any random thing or even putting  trust in "the arm of the flesh". Having faith in something isn't enough. Faith must be placed in Jesus. Pretty basic, right? To me, this means that I hope and trust that Jesus will be the source of my salvation.

I'm with you so far.

Quote

But sometimes in the church it feels like Jesus isn't good enough or powerful enough.

And . . . you lost me.

Quote

That in addition to having faith in Him to save, we must also have faith in the church to save; the prophet and apostles, other leaders, the priesthood, ordinances, family history/temple work, obedience to the commandments etc.

Well, all of these things are based on faith in Christ.  That faith is, as you aptly put it, "foundational."  But by its very essence a "foundation" is supposed to have something built upon it, right?  Hence the counsel in Ephesians 2:

Quote

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
...
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

This speaks of "fellow citizens with the saints" who are "the household of God," which is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets," with Christ as "the chief corner stone."  This structure is further characterized as a "building fitly framed," such that it will eventually become "an holy temple in the Lord . . . for an habitation of God."

As I see it, I don't think we can parse out the "structure" being built (notice the imperfect tense - "being built"), such that we have faith in the "chief corner stone" but not in the other parts of the foundation (apostles and prophets), or in the "temple," the forthcoming "habitation of God."

So I think the LDS Church is a community of faith answering the description in Ephesians 2.  It was established by Christ through prophets, wit is led by Christ through prophets, it administers saving ordinances predicated on the efficacy of Christ's atonement, it is "grow{ing} unto an holy temple in the Lord."

Quote

It's as if Jesus doesn't have power to save except in partnership with the church.

You speak as if the Church were some independent entity, with its own power and authority separate from that of Christ's.  I do not think that is correct.

The LDS Church is Christ's church.  He owns it.  It belongs to Him.  It only has meaning and authority insofar as it is given such things by the Savior.

Quote

To me faith in the church diminishes the everlasting, infinite atonement.

I'm not sure we've been asked to have faith in "the church."  I'm not even sure what that means.  I think faith in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ necessarily requires belief that the Church is what it claims to be.  But "what it claims to be" is an organization founded and led by Christ.  But we are not taught to look to "the Church" as the entity which affected a perfect Atonement for our sins.  Christ did that.

Here's a metaphor: A man flying across the desert crash lands hundreds of miles from any human settlement.  He starts walking, but has minimal supplies, and within a day or so in the scorching heat he is near death.  With his last ounce of strength he utters a prayer to God, then collapses.  Thereafter, a person who traverses the desert regularly drives by and notices the prone form of the man in the sand.  He pulls over, pulls out a large bottle of water, and pours some of the life-giving liquid down the man's throat.  Over the next day or two the man gradually recovers, with the ongoing help of the traveler who found him.  The man is eventually returned to his family.

Now, this man would have every reason to be grateful to the traveller who found him and saved his life, right?  But would the man also have reason to object to . . . the bottle which carried the life-giving water?  Is the goodness of the traveller diminished because the water he provided to the dying man was contained in the bottle?  Is the bottle a bad thing?  

Quote

I know many people won't see a difference between faith in Christ and faith in the church but what do you think? Is the church (Institutionally, leadership or members) sometimes guilty of lifting itself up as the saving  entity through affiliation with Jesus instead of relying wholly on Jesus?

I don't think the Church has ever become too big for its britches.  Its britches are, after all, pretty big.

Quote

Should the article of faith read, "first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?" Or is faith in the church implied by the ordinances of Baptism and laying on of hands (presumably only with authority found in the church)?

The Church is the water bottle.  That's all.  But to the man dying of thirst, whose only hope is the water contained in that bottle . . . well, the existence of the bottle, and its proximity to the man, and its integrity (its ability to hold the water) are all very important.  

But at the end of the day, it's still the water that saves his life.  The bottle is simply the means of administering the water to those who need it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 11, 2016 by smac97