CV75 Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 2 hours ago, cdowis said: The Articles of Faith are in the same category as the Sermon on the Mount. No mention of ordinances or covenants. i see their mention in 3, 4, and 5; and 6 points to those that make them happen. 8 refers to three testaments (Old, New, Another), and10 entails the fulfillment of ancient covenants.
Navidad Posted August 30, 2017 Author Posted August 30, 2017 Wow, thanks so much for all the replies. I have carefully read each of them. I can't reply to each one individually, but I will try and summarize my thoughts in one email that, if you are interested, you can read. That way you also, who are all busy people, don't have to read through 32 messages to piece together my replies, even though you probably are also interested in what each of you has said. First of all this is very helpful to me. I want to reflect seriously and carefully on your replies. As I have said several times, I present my thoughts, not to debate, but to help you help me to understand where I am wrong and what I am missing. I guess I also want to help you understand evangelicals better, although I realize that may not have been on your schedule for today. I hope we truly would enjoy a better and more accurate understanding of each other’s beliefs. If these discussions help you to better understand evangelicals and thus improve your missionary work, I am fine with that. I don’t view any of this as part of my Mennonite service work. I am being selfish. I have spent years trying to understand Mormonism and am about at my wits end (probably not a particularly long journey). Therefore, I have reached out to you all. By the way, occasionally you are snarky with each other in your replies. That makes me smile! I have read about some the rip-roaring disagreements between Brigham Young and Orson Pratt. All of that makes you human to me. You are not just snarky with evangelicals – the enemy! You can be snarky with each other too! Here are my thoughts in no particular order: 1. I am more convinced than ever that evangelicals by and large do not know, let alone understand core foundational LDS beliefs and how they all fit together. I am more convinced than ever that Mormons by and large do not know, let alone understand core foundational evangelical beliefs and how they all fit together. We talk right past each other, saying things that we are taught to say, or that we believe that go right over the other's head. Evangelicals often formally study other faiths in Sunday Schools, in evangelical colleges, and in seminaries (meaning graduate schools - different from Mormon seminaries). This helps us a lot but much of the teaching is stereotypical and apologetic. My sense (I may be wrong) is that there is very little teaching in Mormon Sunday schools, etc. about the real live no kidding beliefs of evangelicals. Mormon understandings and perceptions about non-Mormons may be just as stereotypical and negative, with a little spice that we are the "enemy" thrown into the sauce. I have lived my entire 68 years in the evangelical community including extensive university, seminary, and graduate school in religion experiences and have never once heard a Mormon called the enemy. In two days, I have read several instances on this board of non-Mormons being labelled as enemies. That makes me sad. 2. Somebody, somewhere in Mormon education and training teaches Mormons to focus on creeds; Nicene is the most common example. This one always leaves me scratching my head. I come from a very non-creedal evangelical community. Keep in mind Mennonites are neither Protestants nor Catholics. Most of the evangelicals I know are non-creedal. Probably more Mormons have heard of the Council of Nicea than have evangelicals. I find many Mormon comments about the councils, their importance, and their outcomes to just be flat incorrect and somewhat irrelevant. Sorry. I am not trying to debate here. I am trying to help. The creeds, Nicene, Apostles and otherwise are not important, practiced, or recited by the majority of evangelicals. Nicea didn't decide the canon of scriptures; it didn't settle the nature of God question. Having said that, I would only add that Constantine's mother was a true believing Christian who greatly influenced her son. I think that is something that would be honored by Mormons. Creeds and creedalism mean very little if anything to most evangelicals - I only offer that to you as a means to help you to further your dialogue with them. Evangelicals do not believe what they believe based on any creeds or councils - but on their interpretation of Scripture. I don’t and won’t speak for Catholics. Yes, there are statements of faith, just as there are in the LDS church. They help us to clarify our beliefs, at least in a semi-formal sense. 3. Most evangelicals do not believe in baptismal regeneration. It is important for you to understand that. I do not. For a Mennonite, baptism is a testimony that one has already become a Christian. It is done after-the-fact. No salvific powers in the water or in the baptizer’s hands. Again, my purpose is to react to what I have read, not to debate. There are many other Christian groups besides the Mormons who are baptismal regenerationalists. I don't question that. But yes, we separate ways when you talk about the ordinances only being valid when done by the hand of an authorized priesthood. We don't view baptism as salvific; so therefore, it requires no special authority and has no special validity. It is a testimony; no more – no less. Mennonites have ordinances/sacraments, for sure. Many, especially small Mennonite churches are led by lay leaders, just like Mormon churches – it is one of our similarities. The are identified by their gifts (from the Holy Spirit). They have no special authority in a Mormon use of the word. I understand (I think) what baptism means to you. I also understand the meaning is very different to me. If I became LDS you would insist I was baptized again by the appropriate “authority” – I really struggle with that word. Wilford Woodruff was baptized at age 33 and then was re-baptized seven times, even while an apostle. Mormons were routinely re-baptized during the reformation period. I really don’t understand that if baptism is for remission of sins. I think there re-baptisms were done in a Mennonite sense – (Horrors) in a testimony sense. And, now re-baptisms are rarely if ever done. What changed? Please understanding that is all confusing. 4. Mennonites have no equivalent to “exaltation.” In fact, as a Mennonite that word is somewhat repugnant to my heritage and self-concept. I have no interest or desire at all to be glorified or exalted; I think that is an enormous difference in our faiths. We are taught to be the quiet in the land; to be humble; not to be ostentatious; to live simply. When you write to me about exaltation in eternity, that doesn’t resonate with me. Give me one horse, three cows, and an acre of land in the telestial heaven and I will be happy. Exaltation to something higher; especially to Godhood? That goes right over my head. I try to grasp it, but it is so hard. 5. Perhaps the thing in your replies that confuses me the most and has helped me the most (how about that?) is the challenge of understanding Mormon’s doctrine of universalism on the one hand and exclusion/proprietary/uniqueness on the other. That makes my head spin. Again, please I am not saying you are wrong; I am confessing what I don’t understand. On the one hand, you seem to believe that all but a few (sons of perdition) will spent eternity in one level of heaven with some chance of progressing to a higher one in time. Well, not in time – out of time. Yet at the same time unless I am baptized by a Mormon elder my baptism isn’t valid. Since, you believe in cleansing of sin by the properly authorized baptismal waters, then isn’t my entire basic salvation/forgiveness of sins a non-starter for you regardless of how kind you want to be to me? This is a point that causes me nothing but headaches when I try and figure it out. Mormons are both universalists and exclusionists. Mennonites are neither – perhaps this is the area of the greatest conundrum. We don’t believe we are the only true and living church on earth. We probably believe we were restoring the gospel from a partial apostasy three hundred years before you were, but we would be roundly scolded for believing we are it – the only true church. Nor, do we believe that because of some internal divine spark that everyone except the very very very worst will experience heaven for all eternity. I try, but I have a very difficult time reconciling Mormon exclusionary practice, with their universalism. I will keep trying, but it is a mystery to me. 6. I am just throwing this one in as another struggle I am having – none of you have as of yet mentioned it. I do not understand the Mormon concept of revelation. Perhaps we can save that for another day. I have read posts where Mormons believe that evangelicals do not believe in continuing and on-going revelation. That certainly is not true. I hope we can discuss that some day. Sorry, for having to reply to everyone at once. There are many of you and one of me. I have animals and fruit and pecan trees that need attention, as well as my family. I thank many of you for your kind comments about your experiences with Mennonites. That makes me feel good. I hope I don’t ruin it for you! If any of you are interested I have a PowerPoint I use at Mormon firesides to come and contrast Mennonite and Mormon beliefs. I don’t know if I can post a PowerPoint but I can link who wants to a link to it on my website, or simply send it to you. Ok, and just to keep this light and breezy – I have a trivia question for you. Where and when did Joseph Smith deliver his shortest sermon ever? I have the answer!
stemelbow Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 (edited) 48 minutes ago, pogi said: You can't be serious? You think that is "typical"? I wonder if Navidad's extensive experience with Mormons will reconcile well with your assessment. I'd say in nearly every ward I've been in, at some point, someone mischaracterizes other Christian's on some issue and in every ward someone, at some point, make fun of the conception of god, salvation, or other principles like grace that other christians hold to. So my perception might be swayed by a couple in each ward. And even though this happens rarely, as in once to five times a year in a given ward, it feels frequent to me because it stands out so loudly. In the end I say it fair you take issue with my statements on these grounds. Edited August 30, 2017 by stemelbow 1
mapman Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 43 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I like some of the answers given. But I want to try and add some. It wasn't all that long ago when it was quite acceptable in the LDS Church to preach and think that the Catholic Church was the Church of the Devil. You may have heard some of what Joseph Smith claimed to have been told about the other Christian Churches in his era and in his dealings. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng That's a scriptural passage, so I do believe most LDS would accept this as true. Of course if creeds were developed after this particular interaction between Joseph and an angel, then we may have no position. Some might take this passage to include any creeds at all. These days I think the notion that the Catholic Church is the abominable Church spoken of in scripture is largely not accepted among Mormons, although some no doubt think it remains true. I do think the passage "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof." is largely used within Mormonism to describe other Christian sects, though. It's also the case that Mormons typically have a pretty poor view of other Christians, often mocking their beliefs, or speaking ill of them in Church or other settings, which is seen as a bad thing for some of us. Mormons also like to caricaturize other Christian beliefs in order to add strength to their own. There's nothing official in most of this though. I'm just speaking of my impressions regarding how Mormons view others. In the end, though, most would follow up the caricaturizing and mocking with something like, "but they have some truth. They carry some good, but not the whole truth." Another type of reasoning and comment that really annoys some within the Church like me. I think some have given some pretty good ideas regarding how the LDS Church views other Christian groups. The LDS Church does not accept ordinances such a baptism of others. That's a good point about the doctrine of the apostasy does seem to reflect poorly on other Christian churches. I think that Joseph Smith's view of the apostasy changed somewhat as time went on, or at least he explained it better. The first vision accounts sound more negative, but he also taught about searching out truth in other religions, which is maybe one reason why there is so much in common with the Restorationist movement. I also think that Joseph Smith was more opposed to creeds in principle because they are opposed to the principle of continuing revelation, not so much over the specific content of the creeds. A lot of Mormons have positive opinions of other Christians, but I have also heard people mock other churches. On my mission in Argentina I'd hear other missionaries often complain about the Catholics for only being Catholics because of family tradition, Pentecostal types were mocked for being weird and the manifestation of the Spirit among them as being from the devil, and I think most held a pretty dim view of Jehovah's Witnesses. But still I think a lot of missionaries were averse to such talk. It's hard for me to know which is more common, but most people probably chill out when they aren't missionaries any more. I don't like it either when people say "they have some truth" like it means their religion isn't evil but that it is pretty much useless. I think that we would do good to put in some effort to sincerely learn from other religions. 2
Navidad Posted August 30, 2017 Author Posted August 30, 2017 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: Navidad Regarding your question about non-members taking the sacrament, this is a direct quote and final authority for what the policy is on that, taken from Handbook 2, which is published for general circulation and contains official policies of the church we use to direct the stakes and wards So that is the official policy You can read about any church policy or procedure directly from the manual and do not need to rely on hearsay or what people tell you the policy is- it is all here in black and white for anyone to see https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church?lang=eng My quote can be found in section 20.4 of this manual https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/priesthood-ordinances-and-blessings?lang=eng#20.4 Many many of your questions can be answered in this manual, Quite frankly not everyone follows the manual perfectly or is even aware of every line or policy in the manual, though they should be So this is the source to check to find out if local leadership is following policy or not. Sometimes they may not be! Thanks for the reference. I look forward to reading it.
Meerkat Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: It's also the case that Mormons typically have a pretty poor view of other Christians, often mocking their beliefs, or speaking ill of them in Church or other settings, which is seen as a bad thing for some of us. Mormons also like to caricaturize other Christian beliefs in order to add strength to their own. There's nothing official in most of this though. I'm just speaking of my impressions regarding how Mormons view others. In the end, though, most would follow up the caricaturizing and mocking with something like, "but they have some truth. They carry some good, but not the whole truth." Another type of reasoning and comment that really annoys some within the Church like me. I think some have given some pretty good ideas regarding how the LDS Church views other Christian groups. The LDS Church does not accept ordinances such a baptism of others. With all the kindness I can muster, I must reject Stemelbow's disparaging view of Mormons. I have been a member of the LDS Church for 44 years and have lived in and attended many wards and stakes. I have found Mormons to be consistent in their kindness, love of their fellow beings and in their opinions of good people everywhere, regardless of their religion or no religion at all. We are All God's children, created in His image. In the rare case where a religion is disparaged, those opinions are not embraced by the general membership, or even a few in my experience. The proof is in their desire to help anyone in times of trouble, and contribute to non church humanitarian aid. With what I know of the Mennonites, I think your experience with LDS people would be comparable to your own. Edited August 30, 2017 by Meerkat 1
mapman Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 15 minutes ago, Navidad said: Wow, thanks so much for all the replies. I have carefully read each of them. I can't reply to each one individually, but I will try and summarize my thoughts in one email that, if you are interested, you can read. That way you also, who are all busy people, don't have to read through 32 messages to piece together my replies, even though you probably are also interested in what each of you has said. First of all this is very helpful to me. I want to reflect seriously and carefully on your replies. As I have said several times, I present my thoughts, not to debate, but to help you help me to understand where I am wrong and what I am missing. I guess I also want to help you understand evangelicals better, although I realize that may not have been on your schedule for today. I hope we truly would enjoy a better and more accurate understanding of each other’s beliefs. If these discussions help you to better understand evangelicals and thus improve your missionary work, I am fine with that. I don’t view any of this as part of my Mennonite service work. I am being selfish. I have spent years trying to understand Mormonism and am about at my wits end (probably not a particularly long journey). Therefore, I have reached out to you all. By the way, occasionally you are snarky with each other in your replies. That makes me smile! I have read about some the rip-roaring disagreements between Brigham Young and Orson Pratt. All of that makes you human to me. You are not just snarky with evangelicals – the enemy! You can be snarky with each other too! Here are my thoughts in no particular order: 1. I am more convinced than ever that evangelicals by and large do not know, let alone understand core foundational LDS beliefs and how they all fit together. I am more convinced than ever that Mormons by and large do not know, let alone understand core foundational evangelical beliefs and how they all fit together. We talk right past each other, saying things that we are taught to say, or that we believe that go right over the other's head. Evangelicals often formally study other faiths in Sunday Schools, in evangelical colleges, and in seminaries (meaning graduate schools - different from Mormon seminaries). This helps us a lot but much of the teaching is stereotypical and apologetic. My sense (I may be wrong) is that there is very little teaching in Mormon Sunday schools, etc. about the real live no kidding beliefs of evangelicals. Mormon understandings and perceptions about non-Mormons may be just as stereotypical and negative, with a little spice that we are the "enemy" thrown into the sauce. I have lived my entire 68 years in the evangelical community including extensive university, seminary, and graduate school in religion experiences and have never once heard a Mormon called the enemy. In two days, I have read several instances on this board of non-Mormons being labelled as enemies. That makes me sad. 2. Somebody, somewhere in Mormon education and training teaches Mormons to focus on creeds; Nicene is the most common example. This one always leaves me scratching my head. I come from a very non-creedal evangelical community. Keep in mind Mennonites are neither Protestants nor Catholics. Most of the evangelicals I know are non-creedal. Probably more Mormons have heard of the Council of Nicea than have evangelicals. I find many Mormon comments about the councils, their importance, and their outcomes to just be flat incorrect and somewhat irrelevant. Sorry. I am not trying to debate here. I am trying to help. The creeds, Nicene, Apostles and otherwise are not important, practiced, or recited by the majority of evangelicals. Nicea didn't decide the canon of scriptures; it didn't settle the nature of God question. Having said that, I would only add that Constantine's mother was a true believing Christian who greatly influenced her son. I think that is something that would be honored by Mormons. Creeds and creedalism mean very little if anything to most evangelicals - I only offer that to you as a means to help you to further your dialogue with them. Evangelicals do not believe what they believe based on any creeds or councils - but on their interpretation of Scripture. I don’t and won’t speak for Catholics. Yes, there are statements of faith, just as there are in the LDS church. They help us to clarify our beliefs, at least in a semi-formal sense. 3. Most evangelicals do not believe in baptismal regeneration. It is important for you to understand that. I do not. For a Mennonite, baptism is a testimony that one has already become a Christian. It is done after-the-fact. No salvific powers in the water or in the baptizer’s hands. Again, my purpose is to react to what I have read, not to debate. There are many other Christian groups besides the Mormons who are baptismal regenerationalists. I don't question that. But yes, we separate ways when you talk about the ordinances only being valid when done by the hand of an authorized priesthood. We don't view baptism as salvific; so therefore, it requires no special authority and has no special validity. It is a testimony; no more – no less. Mennonites have ordinances/sacraments, for sure. Many, especially small Mennonite churches are led by lay leaders, just like Mormon churches – it is one of our similarities. The are identified by their gifts (from the Holy Spirit). They have no special authority in a Mormon use of the word. I understand (I think) what baptism means to you. I also understand the meaning is very different to me. If I became LDS you would insist I was baptized again by the appropriate “authority” – I really struggle with that word. Wilford Woodruff was baptized at age 33 and then was re-baptized seven times, even while an apostle. Mormons were routinely re-baptized during the reformation period. I really don’t understand that if baptism is for remission of sins. I think there re-baptisms were done in a Mennonite sense – (Horrors) in a testimony sense. And, now re-baptisms are rarely if ever done. What changed? Please understanding that is all confusing. 4. Mennonites have no equivalent to “exaltation.” In fact, as a Mennonite that word is somewhat repugnant to my heritage and self-concept. I have no interest or desire at all to be glorified or exalted; I think that is an enormous difference in our faiths. We are taught to be the quiet in the land; to be humble; not to be ostentatious; to live simply. When you write to me about exaltation in eternity, that doesn’t resonate with me. Give me one horse, three cows, and an acre of land in the telestial heaven and I will be happy. Exaltation to something higher; especially to Godhood? That goes right over my head. I try to grasp it, but it is so hard. 5. Perhaps the thing in your replies that confuses me the most and has helped me the most (how about that?) is the challenge of understanding Mormon’s doctrine of universalism on the one hand and exclusion/proprietary/uniqueness on the other. That makes my head spin. Again, please I am not saying you are wrong; I am confessing what I don’t understand. On the one hand, you seem to believe that all but a few (sons of perdition) will spent eternity in one level of heaven with some chance of progressing to a higher one in time. Well, not in time – out of time. Yet at the same time unless I am baptized by a Mormon elder my baptism isn’t valid. Since, you believe in cleansing of sin by the properly authorized baptismal waters, then isn’t my entire basic salvation/forgiveness of sins a non-starter for you regardless of how kind you want to be to me? This is a point that causes me nothing but headaches when I try and figure it out. Mormons are both universalists and exclusionists. Mennonites are neither – perhaps this is the area of the greatest conundrum. We don’t believe we are the only true and living church on earth. We probably believe we were restoring the gospel from a partial apostasy three hundred years before you were, but we would be roundly scolded for believing we are it – the only true church. Nor, do we believe that because of some internal divine spark that everyone except the very very very worst will experience heaven for all eternity. I try, but I have a very difficult time reconciling Mormon exclusionary practice, with their universalism. I will keep trying, but it is a mystery to me. 6. I am just throwing this one in as another struggle I am having – none of you have as of yet mentioned it. I do not understand the Mormon concept of revelation. Perhaps we can save that for another day. I have read posts where Mormons believe that evangelicals do not believe in continuing and on-going revelation. That certainly is not true. I hope we can discuss that some day. Sorry, for having to reply to everyone at once. There are many of you and one of me. I have animals and fruit and pecan trees that need attention, as well as my family. I thank many of you for your kind comments about your experiences with Mennonites. That makes me feel good. I hope I don’t ruin it for you! If any of you are interested I have a PowerPoint I use at Mormon firesides to come and contrast Mennonite and Mormon beliefs. I don’t know if I can post a PowerPoint but I can link who wants to a link to it on my website, or simply send it to you. Ok, and just to keep this light and breezy – I have a trivia question for you. Where and when did Joseph Smith deliver his shortest sermon ever? I have the answer! My thoughts on some of your points: 1. Yeah, Mormons aren't formally taught about the beliefs of other religions. If a Mormon wants to learn about that they would have to seek out the information themselves. There is an institute class on world religions, but most Mormons aren't going to take that class. I think Mormons get frustrated that their beliefs are so often misunderstood, so I think you are exactly right that we are usually talking past each other. 2. Mormon aversion to the creeds comes from the days of Joseph Smith who would somewhat frequently condemn them. My impression has been the creeds are pretty important to Catholics and especially theologians in the Reformed tradition, and it seems like anti-Mormons use them as a primary reason to claim we're not Christians. You're probably right, though, that your average Christian doesn't care about them very much. 3. Although we used to practice rebaptism, baptism has always been viewed as a prerequisite to salvation by Mormons. The Book of Mormon teaches that the order of salvation is to have faith in Christ, be repentant, baptized by water and spirit, and then endure to the end. I'm not super familiar with the history of rebaptism in Mormonsim, but a person's first baptism into the church was always seen as regenerative. So I guess there is a fundamental disagreement there with other interpretations of baptism. 5. Honestly, Mormon doctrine on universalism is kind of "fuzzy," so it will probably be hard to definitively answer all your questions about it. Instead of getting into specifics, I think we prefer to just say that God will sort it all out. But I think maybe what you're missing is the assumption that everyone will eventually realize that the fullness of the Gospel as taught in the Book of Mormon is true, though for many that conversion might only happen after the Second Coming or after spending a thousand years in hell or whatever. So we are universal in that we believe everyone will at least have the opportunity to know the exclusive truth. Hopefully that makes sense. 6. I don't want to derail your thread, but I think that there are some real differences between Mormon understanding of revelation and that of orthodox Christianity. You can correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't think most Christians are willing to accept new books of scripture that are more perfect than the Bible, or revelations to add to and correct Bible passages. Mormons have an open scriptural canon and view their prophets and apostles to be just like the authors of the Bible. 3
cdowis Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said: forgive me if I'm misunderstanding but doesn't AoF 3 & 4 specifically mention ordinances? Obviously I did not attend Primary, so i did not lean them. Sigh.
RevTestament Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 (edited) 17 hours ago, Navidad said: Well, today I earned my 25th post and am now able to initiate posts on my own. I have already written a lot; probably too much. So I will ask the question that is most important to me. It is important for me to know what Mormons really believe about those who claim to be Holy Spirit-led and filled Christians from traditions other than Mormonism. I guess the first part of the question would be "Is there a formalized teaching about this subject based on LDS scriptures or accepted teachings, or is an individual Mormon able to posit his or her own thinking about this question? I start with that because if you asked 100 evangelicals what they think about the Christianity of Mormons, you would get at least 40 different answers. Is that how it is with Mormon's approach to the claims of Christians who come from outside the Mormon tradition? Can a faithful Mormon say one thing and another faithful Mormon respond differently and both still be faithful Mormons? My own experience when I ask this question of Mormons is that the answer varies (as I indicated it does with evangelicals toward Mormons). When I ask the question, as a non-Mormon attending Mormon services, what may or may not I do therein? The overwhelming answer I have received is that the Church has no position; it is up to the local leader (bishop or stake president). So under one leader I might be able to attend and take the sacrament. Under another I can sing in the choir and do the other two. In another I may be asked to pray and/ or allowed to testify. And on and on. Is that how it is with the LDS response to me (now I am personalizing it to provide context) asking about my eternal future (without help from Mormon endowments, baptisms for the dead, or other spirit world intervention)? There is a famous evangelical hymn entitled "Just as I am." That is what I am asking you, what is my eternal destiny, both from a salvation and exaltation perspective, just as I am. Am I fully able to experience salvation outside of the ordinances of the Mormon church? Can I experience salvation, but not exaltation? Neither? Let's assume for my question I was baptized by an elder/pastor in my church by immersion as a 7 year old, I went on a mission, I experienced the laying on of hands by elders and was anointed with oil and thus consecrated to use my Holy Spirit given gifts to the gospel ministry and have exercised those gifts in marrying, baptizing, blessing, counseling, helping, anointing with oil for healing, etc. those who request all or any of that from me. Is there any power of the Holy Spirit/efficacy in my doing that? Or is it all for naught because I am not a Mormon priesthood holder? The essence of my question is not helped by my going into what I believe about all of this. I already know what I believe. What I don't know is what Mormons believe with any exactitude, which may not be possible to know when different Mormons reply with different answers, as I have experienced in the past. I also know that kind folks are hesitant to appear to be mean and hurtful to one who they believe to be genuine and sincere in his faith. I don't want that kind of answer. I don't want to be called "brother" if you really don't think I am your brother in Christ. Hi Navidad, You have received good answers to your several questions. However, there are some additional things I want to offer for consideration. You have been given links concerning our doctrine of salvation, but I want to give you one more. Our beliefs about the salvation of men stem from D&C 76 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/76?lang=eng In short we believe men receive according to their works, but that in the end most will be saved. I personally believe that for the hardest hearts this will be at the final judgment when they are resurrected from hell, and brought before the Lord. Being faced with the glory of God, I believe they will repent, and thus be saved. But it won't be to the Celestial kingdom. For me being saved means being saved from punishment - not being exalted. I believe the Church somewhat confuses this terminology, but the underlying doctrine nevertheless comes from D&C 76. What it means to be saved, is to die in Christ having repented of one's sins. These souls go to paradise to await their resurrection rather than to spirit prison - also known as hell. If they die in their sins they go to spirit prison or hell to pay for them since they didn't accept a mediation for them from Yeshua. Based upon Jesus' statements in John, 1 Peter, 1 Corinthians and D&C we believe Yeshua went to spirit prison for up to three days after he was crucified to teach those who "could live godly" if they knew the truth. Jesus said the dead would hear His voice, and those who heard, would live with Him - ie would be resurrected. See John 5:25. So in our Church we teach that those who never heard the gospel in this life, will have that opportunity in the spirit world, or their next estate, and be saved in the next resurrection. This is the reason we perform temple ordinances on behalf of the dead. If they accept their proxy baptisms, they too can receive salvation. They can also receive exaltation through other ordinances, which the Church often calls "saving ordinances." To answer your question more succinctly, I believe Mennonites do adhere to the central tenets of the gospel, and therefore I consider them Christian, and therefore brothers and sisters in Christ. I believe one can repent without baptism, but that baptism is necessary for their resurrection, and to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Without baptism by proper authority one will go without the companionship of the Holy Spirit. That doesn't mean the Holy Spirit won't speak to them or manifest truths in their prayers. I believe all Christians can access the Holy Spirit from time to time. To apply this to you "just as I am" I believe you can repent, and thus it is possible for you to die in a saved state and go to paradise. However, you will stay there until you accept baptism on your behalf, and can be resurrected. This is very different from teachings of other Churches, so I wanted to try to clarify more. I believe most LDS would agree with the basics of the above, although as indicated there may be quibbling over "saving ordinances," and who is saved, etc. mbukowski, brought up an answer to your question about sacrament. In an abundance of caution, I tell my investigators not to partake of the sacrament unless they gain a testimony of this Church because of the following scripture: 3 Nephi 18:29 29 For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and ablood bunworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him. However, some may feel worthy even though they have not joined themselves to the community of this Church, and I suppose the Church does not stop them from partaking. But, otherwise Church investigators can sing in the choir and do most things full members can do - share in Sunday School, etc. However, they will not receive a calling without joining themselves to the Church - I think. Quote I really would like to know what are the teachings of the Church as you understand them? I would also like different ones of you, if you disagree with a response another of you gives to let me know. Is there diversity of perspective on this view? Also if there is a Church position and there is also in reality a "yeh but" position where you know Mormons respond with different perspectives I would like to know that too. Again, this isn't about my beliefs. I am happy to answer any questions about that in another thread. For example, what do I believe about Melchizedek is not relevant to this discussion. That is another thread. I have written a whole commentary on the book of Hebrews, so sure I have beliefs and opinions about Melchizedek - ask any in another thread if you would like to. I am also very interested in the concept of the Great Apostasy. It makes no sense to me historically or Biblically. But that is another thread. Thanks so much for your time and to any of you who see fit to answer. I will try and limit my responses to seeking clarification for things I don't understand or things about which I need a fuller understanding. I just don't want to debate. I am not asking so I can challenge your view. Please believe that and I will do my very best to be faithful to that. I believe I have given responses to the extent I may disagree with what others have said. On the issue of resurrection and baptism, I don't believe there is currently a doctrinal teaching reflecting what I said. I would chalk that up to my personal interpretation of scripture to the extent I believe it is inspired. Lastly, on the subject of the Great Apostasy, I mostly concur with Church teachings. There was a complete apostasy, and I place it at the time of the state Church of Rome. In the East, that is the Parthian Empire, the Church lasted longer until it was almost completely destroyed by Muslims. This loss was inevitable without the guidance of the apostles, which loss the Lord allowed. There are many scriptures which reflect this apostasy, and I am not going to list them all - John 9:4 I must awork the bworks of him that sent me, cwhileit is dday: the enight cometh, when no man can work. Acts 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking aperverse things, to bdraw away disciples after them. Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscienceseared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: 5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. The Shakers died out, but it is still the latter times and there is a church which forbids its priests to marry. Acts 3:21 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of arestitution of all things, which God hath bspoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. Acts says Yeshua will not return until there is a restoration (restitution means restoration) of all things. To be a restoration, something must have been lost. But what? I think Mennonites agree much was lost in "orthodoxy." I believe God tells us that many new converts did not receive a love of the truth, and therefore He allowed them to enter "strong delusion." 2 Thess 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: I believe that lie started in the Nicene Creed with the change made to the begotten nature of Yeshua. You say you have commented much on Hebrews. Hebrews teaches Yeshua was begotten by the oath of the Father. One either believes that or they don't. His relationship with the Father was one of covenant. He was "adopted" as the Father's Son. That is all per Hebrews. However, on this issue I don't believe the Church has a well established doctrine. I hinted at it on another thread in discussing the King Follett discourse. Edited August 30, 2017 by RevTestament
Navidad Posted August 30, 2017 Author Posted August 30, 2017 36 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I'd say in nearly every ward I've been in, at some point, someone mischaracterizes other Christian's on some issue and in every ward someone, at some point, make fun of the conception of god, salvation, or other principles like grace that other christians hold to. So my perception might be swayed by a couple in each ward. And even though this happens rarely, as in once to five times a year in a given ward, it feels frequent to me because it stands out so loudly. In the end I say it fair you take issue with my statements on these grounds. Hi: I think I would agree that there is much mischaracterization of Protestants and their beliefs in Mormon circles. How much of it is purposeful and with malice, I don't know. I haven't heard it in a ward service, but I certainly have read it on forums - over and over. Someone, somehow, somewhere is still teaching an incomplete or incorrect teaching about Protestants (I can't speak at all for Catholics). I believe some of it is mean and demeaning; but that the majority of it is ignorance. I have come to the conclusion that since the LDS Church sees itself as the only true and living church on earth, they just don't see the need to focus too much on everyone else. So, stereotypes and caricatures take over. After all the Protestant pastor was for years seen by every worthy Mormon as being in league with Lucifer, right? Not a very uplifting starting point. The vast majority of Mormons have been very kind to me. Now that I have thought of it, let me share one thing I have heard here on the forum and from Mormons. I can't possibly understand and appreciate the LDS ward sacrament service because I was baptized without any baptismal covenants. Huh? Before a Mennonite is baptized, he or she goes through a six week (at least) training class on what baptism means and the importance of remembering Christ's death, burial, and resurrection as is demonstrated by immersion. It is a testimony to all of the new believer's faith. We are also called upon to remember that when we watch others being baptized. Now, I know that doesn't all fit with LDS baptismal doctrine, but to say that I can't sit there in a sacrament service and reflect on my own experience, covenants and beliefs is completely inaccurate. I think some Mormons just assume they are the only ones who........fill in the blank. Again, I think it would lead to much better understanding if we knew more and respected what we learn about each other. That is what I am trying to do. 2
stemelbow Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 21 minutes ago, Meerkat said: With all the kindness I can muster, I must reject Stemelbow's disparaging view of Mormons. I have been a member of the LDS Church for 44 years and have lived in and attended many wards and stakes. I have found Mormons to be consistent in their kindness, love of their fellow beings and in their opinions of good people everywhere, regardless of their religion or no religion at all. We are All God's children, created in His image. In the rare case where a religion is disparaged, those opinions are not embraced by the general membership, or even a few in my experience. The proof is in their desire to help anyone in times of trouble, and contribute to non church humanitarian aid. With what I know of the Mennonites, I think your experience with LDS people would be comparable to your own. How dare you Disagree with me is of the devil, I hear. 1
pogi Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 1 hour ago, Navidad said: 5. Perhaps the thing in your replies that confuses me the most and has helped me the most (how about that?) is the challenge of understanding Mormon’s doctrine of universalism on the one hand and exclusion/proprietary/uniqueness on the other. That makes my head spin. Again, please I am not saying you are wrong; I am confessing what I don’t understand. On the one hand, you seem to believe that all but a few (sons of perdition) will spent eternity in one level of heaven with some chance of progressing to a higher one in time. Well, not in time – out of time. Yet at the same time unless I am baptized by a Mormon elder my baptism isn’t valid. Since, you believe in cleansing of sin by the properly authorized baptismal waters, then isn’t my entire basic salvation/forgiveness of sins a non-starter for you regardless of how kind you want to be to me? This is a point that causes me nothing but headaches when I try and figure it out. Mormons are both universalists and exclusionists. Mennonites are neither – perhaps this is the area of the greatest conundrum. We don’t believe we are the only true and living church on earth. We probably believe we were restoring the gospel from a partial apostasy three hundred years before you were, but we would be roundly scolded for believing we are it – the only true church. Nor, do we believe that because of some internal divine spark that everyone except the very very very worst will experience heaven for all eternity. I try, but I have a very difficult time reconciling Mormon exclusionary practice, with their universalism. I will keep trying, but it is a mystery to me. Yes, the ideas of universalism and exclusionsim seem contradictory, but the key in understanding how they are harmonious in Mormonism is in understanding the doctrines of the plan of Salvation - the different degrees of glory, the difference between salvation and exaltation, and also in understanding temple work for the dead. Here are some quotes to help you understand the Mormon perspective of universalism and baptism requirements. Quote Joseph Smith Every man lives for himself. Adam was made to open the way of the world, and for dressing the garden. Noah was born to save seed of everything, when the earth was washed of its wickedness by the flood; and the Son of God came into the world to redeem it from the fall. But except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. This eternal truth settles the question of all men's religion. A man may be saved, after the judgment, in the terrestrial kingdom, or in the telestial kingdom, but he can never see the celestial kingdom of God, without being born of water and the Spirit. He may receive a glory like unto the moon, [i.e., of which the light of the moon is typical], or a star, [i.e., of which the light of the stars is typical], but he can never come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels; to the general assembly and church of the Firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, unless he becomes as a little child, and is taught by the Spirit of God. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.12) Quote Joseph Fielding Smith The Prophet says a man may enter into the terrestrial or the telestial kingdom who has not been baptized with water and who has not in this life received these ordinances, but he can never enter into the celestial kingdom without complying with these eternal laws. Each kingdom, of course, is governed by laws. We have nothing to do with the laws of the telestial or terrestrial kingdoms, so far as the preaching of the gospel is concerned. Our mission is to preach the salvation of the kingdom of God, where he and Christ dwell, which is the celestial kingdom. And all of the principles of the gospel which have been given unto us pertain to the celestial kingdom. (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:25-26) Will those who enter the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms have to have the ordinance of baptism? No! Baptism is the door into the celestial kingdom. The Lord made this clear to Nicodemus. We are not preaching a salvation for the inhabitants of the terrestrial or the telestial kingdoms. All of the ordinances of the gospel pertain to the celestial kingdom, and what the Lord will require by way of ordinances, if any, in the other kingdoms he has not revealed. (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:329) The First Presidency have said in answer to a similar question: Quote We know of no ordinances pertaining to the terrestrial or the telestial kingdom. All of the ordinances of the gospel are given for the salvation of men in the celestial kingdom and pertain unto that kingdom. (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:330) Mormons are only exclusionists in regard to the Celestial Kingdom. But in regards to general salvation, no we don't believe that good Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu's, and non-Mormon Christians will burn for all eternity for never having a Christian or Mormon missionary preach Jesus to them. The thought makes one cringe, and would make God a partial God. 2
pogi Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 1 hour ago, Navidad said: 4. Mennonites have no equivalent to “exaltation.” In fact, as a Mennonite that word is somewhat repugnant to my heritage and self-concept. I have no interest or desire at all to be glorified or exalted; I think that is an enormous difference in our faiths. We are taught to be the quiet in the land; to be humble; not to be ostentatious; to live simply. When you write to me about exaltation in eternity, that doesn’t resonate with me. Give me one horse, three cows, and an acre of land in the telestial heaven and I will be happy. Exaltation to something higher; especially to Godhood? That goes right over my head. I try to grasp it, but it is so hard. We are gods in embryo Navidad. There is nothing repugnant about it. It is an absolutely beautiful and cherished doctrine in helping us to understand our literal relationship with God the Father. He is our Father. We are his children. There could be no more precious doctrine on the face of the planet or throughout all of history, than the doctrine that teaches me that he is "Abba" or "daddy". We can be one in every way. If the idea of exaltation is repugnant to you, or if it seems inherently ostentatious, consider the exaltation of Christ. There was not an ostentatious bone in his body. He is the exemplar of humility, seeking only to do the will of the father. Yet, he was glorified on high. It might be a good idea to keep it a secret from God that you find Godhood, a "repugnant" and "ostentatious" idea. He is a God after all, and I think he might see Godhood in a slightly different light from you. Just sayin' P.S. you will be no more capable of grasping the idea of Godhood now, then a zygote is capable of grasping the idea of becoming a human. It will just happen naturally and gracefully as you continue to follow Christ. It will become perceivable in time as we listen to daddy's voice and try to emulate his character, and become as he is. If God is good, then there could be nothing bad about becoming good like Him. 1
Meerkat Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 31 minutes ago, Navidad said: Hi: I think I would agree that there is much mischaracterization of Protestants and their beliefs in Mormon circles. How much of it is purposeful and with malice, I don't know. I haven't heard it in a ward service, but I certainly have read it on forums - over and over. Someone, somehow, somewhere is still teaching an incomplete or incorrect teaching about Protestants (I can't speak at all for Catholics). I believe some of it is mean and demeaning; but that the majority of it is ignorance. I have come to the conclusion that since the LDS Church sees itself as the only true and living church on earth, they just don't see the need to focus too much on everyone else. So, stereotypes and caricatures take over. After all the Protestant pastor was for years seen by every worthy Mormon as being in league with Lucifer, right? Not a very uplifting starting point. The vast majority of Mormons have been very kind to me. Now that I have thought of it, let me share one thing I have heard here on the forum and from Mormons. I can't possibly understand and appreciate the LDS ward sacrament service because I was baptized without any baptismal covenants. Huh? Before a Mennonite is baptized, he or she goes through a six week (at least) training class on what baptism means and the importance of remembering Christ's death, burial, and resurrection as is demonstrated by immersion. It is a testimony to all of the new believer's faith. We are also called upon to remember that when we watch others being baptized. Now, I know that doesn't all fit with LDS baptismal doctrine, but to say that I can't sit there in a sacrament service and reflect on my own experience, covenants and beliefs is completely inaccurate. I think some Mormons just assume they are the only ones who........fill in the blank. Again, I think it would lead to much better understanding if we knew more and respected what we learn about each other. That is what I am trying to do. I think there is more snarkiness in forums like this than in live conversations. Part of it, imo, is that the written word can be easily misunderstood, seen for more than it is and emotions needlessly aroused. Regarding Joseph Smith's view of Catholics and other faiths and creeds, Teryl and Fiona Givens shared some research in their book titled "The Crucible of Doubt." : "While Smith’s language was typical of the era, the “abominations” he alluded to were not, contrary to general assumption, in reference to the Catholic creeds. Indeed, Smith felt it was the Protestant creeds that were the root of Christianity’s most lamentable errors. The creedal formulation most attacked by early Mormon writers, and defended by their antagonists, had nothing to do with the Athanasian or Nicene controversies. It was the Protestant wording of the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles (1563), largely incorporated into the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), that Mormons criticized consistently. “There is but one only living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions [incorporeus, impartibilis, impassibilis],” held the document that was the theological basis for subsequent formulations of Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, and Methodists.12 In fact, “the reigning theology of the country,” noted a visiting German scholar in 1844, “is the theology of the Westminster Confession.” The issue appears to be the creeds, not the people. 2
Navidad Posted August 30, 2017 Author Posted August 30, 2017 22 minutes ago, pogi said: Yes, the ideas of universalism and exclusionsim seem contradictory, but the key in understanding how they are harmonious in Mormonism is in understanding the doctrines of the plan of Salvation - the different degrees of glory, the difference between salvation and exaltation, and also in understanding temple work for the dead. Here are some quotes to help you understand the Mormon perspective of universalism and baptism requirements. The First Presidency have said in answer to a similar question: Mormons are only exclusionists in regard to the Celestial Kingdom. But in regards to general salvation, no we don't believe that good Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu's, and non-Mormon Christians will burn for all eternity for never having a Christian or Mormon missionary preach Jesus to them. The thought makes one cringe, and would make God a partial God. But, but, but (I worry I am debating) doesn't the concept that God only accepts and honors Mormon baptism make Him a partial God as well? Even Catholics now accept other baptisms as valid.
Meerkat Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 (edited) 56 minutes ago, stemelbow said: How dare you Disagree with me is of the devil, I hear. Edited August 30, 2017 by Meerkat 1
pogi Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Navidad said: But, but, but (I worry I am debating) doesn't the concept that God only accepts and honors Mormon baptism make Him a partial God as well? Even Catholics now accept other baptisms as valid. That is the beauty of temple work and baptism for the dead (1 Cor. 15:29). It doesn't make him partial when God offers baptism to every single being who has existed on this planet through the loving sacrificial labor of temple work. The gift is offered to all, if you don't accept the gift, he is not going to force it on you. He respects your agency. He is not partial in offering baptism and the opportunity for exaltation to anyone. It doesn't matter when or where you were born on this planet. It doesn't matter which religion your parents raised you in, Christian or not. His impartiality is evidenced through temple work. Edited August 30, 2017 by pogi 1
Meerkat Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 6 minutes ago, Navidad said: But, but, but (I worry I am debating) doesn't the concept that God only accepts and honors Mormon baptism make Him a partial God as well? Even Catholics now accept other baptisms as valid. Not at all. In fact it reconciles all people whoever lived through baptism by proxy in Temples, and the other ordinances bringing them all under proper authority, giving all the opportunity to accept or reject in this life or in the spirit world. Ref. 1 Peter 3:18-21, 1 Peter 4:6, 1 Cor. 15:29 2
clarkgoble Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Navidad said: So, stereotypes and caricatures take over. After all the Protestant pastor was for years seen by every worthy Mormon as being in league with Lucifer, right? Not a very uplifting starting point. To be fair that was taken out of the endowment. Also the role was a bit more complex than you suggest. It was the idea that Satan could use religion to deceive. Which I think most Protestants would agree with. Indeed many for years tended to disparage "papists" in a very similar way. (Certainly there were big conflicts between Evangelicals and Catholics when I lived in Louisiana) I don't think the pastor was ever intended to represent Protestantism, despite some quoting from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. Rather it was intended to represent abuse of religion - which many members took to include Mormons via an ambiguous "sectarian preacher." But since it could be misconstrued it was removed in the early 90's. Elements remain but very abstracted and without someone representing the role. Also the issue primarily, beyond the idea of priestcraft, elements of platonism found in the Westminster Confession. However clearly many protestants don't accept that. My understanding is that Mennonites don't accept that Confession. Note this Confession also states the Pope is the Anti-Christ. So condemning the Westminister Confession by way of this role as a problem is somewhat ironic. Edited August 30, 2017 by clarkgoble 2
Navidad Posted August 30, 2017 Author Posted August 30, 2017 24 minutes ago, Meerkat said: I think there is more snarkiness in forums like this than in live conversations. Part of it, imo, is that the written word can be easily misunderstood, seen for more than it is and emotions needlessly aroused. Regarding Joseph Smith's view of Catholics and other faiths and creeds, Teryl and Fiona Givens shared some research in their book titled "The Crucible of Doubt." : "While Smith’s language was typical of the era, the “abominations” he alluded to were not, contrary to general assumption, in reference to the Catholic creeds. Indeed, Smith felt it was the Protestant creeds that were the root of Christianity’s most lamentable errors. The creedal formulation most attacked by early Mormon writers, and defended by their antagonists, had nothing to do with the Athanasian or Nicene controversies. It was the Protestant wording of the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles (1563), largely incorporated into the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), that Mormons criticized consistently. “There is but one only living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions [incorporeus, impartibilis, impassibilis],” held the document that was the theological basis for subsequent formulations of Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, and Methodists.12 In fact, “the reigning theology of the country,” noted a visiting German scholar in 1844, “is the theology of the Westminster Confession.” The issue appears to be the creeds, not the people. The Westminster Confession is over 150 pages long. Mormons would agree with some it and reject other parts of it. That doesn't make them creedal. It is creedal only for some reformed faiths. It certainly isn't creedal for Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, or any of the Anabaptist faiths. They will each agree with some parts and disagree with others, just like Mormons. That doesn't make them creedal.
bluebell Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 13 minutes ago, Navidad said: But, but, but (I worry I am debating) doesn't the concept that God only accepts and honors Mormon baptism make Him a partial God as well? Even Catholics now accept other baptisms as valid. The doctrine is that God only accepts and honors baptisms performed by His authority. It's not about being exclusionary or the idea that God only cares about certain people, it's about God requiring His kingdom to be a kingdom of order. 2
smac97 Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Navidad said: 1. I am more convinced than ever that evangelicals by and large do not know, let alone understand core foundational LDS beliefs and how they all fit together. I am more convinced than ever that Mormons by and large do not know, let alone understand core foundational evangelical beliefs and how they all fit together. That's probably a fair assessment. Quote Mormon understandings and perceptions about non-Mormons may be just as stereotypical and negative, with a little spice that we are the "enemy" thrown into the sauce. I think these "understandings and perceptions" are not substantive, but are instead summed up as "they have some differences with us." My experience has been that there is very little said about other faiths in our meetings and educational venues (BYU, seminaries/institutes, etc.). And what is said is generally quite respectful and/or presented as a mild contrasting element to what we believe. Past generations may have been a bit more in-your-face, but my personal experience has been quite pleasant. For example, my ward has a number of members who are converts from other Christian faiths, mostly Catholic and a few Protestant. These folks will occasionally describe what they believed previously and contrast it with what they believe now. These comparisons have connotations of affection and respect, as most of these folks have family members who are still Catholic or Protestant, and also recognize the innate value of those belief systems. Quote I have lived my entire 68 years in the evangelical community including extensive university, seminary, and graduate school in religion experiences and have never once heard a Mormon called the enemy. In two days, I have read several instances on this board of non-Mormons being labelled as enemies. That makes me sad. This board is, by design, adversarial. And there is a lot of anonymity. And there are sensitive and difficult topics addressed here. And disrespect for or ridicule of LDS doctrines and beliefs is often present, such that these unworthy sentiments are sometimes reciprocated (or, worse, presented by Latter-day Saints in the first instance). Quote 2. Somebody, somewhere in Mormon education and training teaches Mormons to focus on creeds; Nicene is the most common example. I think the creeds have been a more significant point of analysis/discussion in past generations. Not so much now. Quote 3. Most evangelicals do not believe in baptismal regeneration. It is important for you to understand that. I do not. For a Mennonite, baptism is a testimony that one has already become a Christian. It is done after-the-fact. No salvific powers in the water or in the baptizer’s hands. Again, my purpose is to react to what I have read, not to debate. There are many other Christian groups besides the Mormons who are baptismal regenerationalists. I'm not sure Latter-day Saints are "baptismal regenerationalists," at least as you have described it (that is, that we believe in in "salvific powers in the water or in the baptizer’s hands"). It is the sealing of the ordinance by the Holy Spirit of Promise that is determinative as to the efficacy of the ordinance. I think that sealing is conditioned on things like the ordinance having been performed by authority, and the person's subsequent conduct (continuing repentance, "enduring to the end", etc.). Quote I don't question that. But yes, we separate ways when you talk about the ordinances only being valid when done by the hand of an authorized priesthood. Yes, I suppose we do. Quote We don't view baptism as salvific; so therefore, it requires no special authority and has no special validity. I think reasonable minds can disagree about that. I am grateful that we can both acknowledge that. Quote It is a testimony; no more – no less. Mennonites have ordinances/sacraments, for sure. Many, especially small Mennonite churches are led by lay leaders, just like Mormon churches – it is one of our similarities. The are identified by their gifts (from the Holy Spirit). They have no special authority in a Mormon use of the word. I understand (I think) what baptism means to you. I also understand the meaning is very different to me. If I became LDS you would insist I was baptized again by the appropriate “authority” – I really struggle with that word. Why do you think Jesus went to John the Baptist to be baptized? Why not just anyone? What was unique about John? And what are your thoughts about the Levites in the Old Testament? Why did they have special religious authority the remainder of the tribes did not? Why did Jesus "ordain" the Twelve Apostles (see Mark 3:14)? If it wasn't to invest them with "authority," then what was the purpose? What are your thoughts about the "keys of the kingdom" referenced in Matthew 16:19? Does everyone have, by virtue of faith in Christ, power to "bind" on earth and in heaven? Quote Wilford Woodruff was baptized at age 33 and then was re-baptized seven times, even while an apostle. Mormons were routinely re-baptized during the reformation period. The reformation period lasted about two years, and was extraordinary in many ways. Quote I really don’t understand that if baptism is for remission of sins. I think there re-baptisms were done in a Mennonite sense – (Horrors) in a testimony sense. Agreed. From The Encyclopedia of Mormonism: Quote The Mormon Reformation commenced in early September 1856, when President Brigham Young sent his counselor Jedediah M. Grant to preach reform in settlements north of Salt Lake City. While speaking to assembled Saints, Grant was prompted to commit them to reform and to counsel them to signify that commitment through rebaptism. Grant's success had a contagious effect, and within days Saints in other settlements showed their commitment by being rebaptized. Early reform efforts, influenced by President Grant's unbridled enthusiasm, were somewhat spontaneous. The revivalistic spirit, the anxious confession, and the mass rebaptisms, however, gradually gave way to more judicious and ordered reform. The reform became especially systematic at Church headquarters, where a policy was established to have two home missionaries assigned to each ward. Equipped with a twenty-seven-question catechism to help measure the worthiness of the Saints, the home missionaries assisted families with everything from hygiene and church attendance to obeying the Ten Commandments. Only after some months of missionary-member visits were Saints in the Salt Lake City wards rebaptized in early spring of 1857. In Salt Lake City, rebaptism generally marked the formal end of the Reformation, though reform fervor continued until mid-1858. I think the Church was under a lot of pressure, and was undergoing some "growing pains" during this time. Quote And, now re-baptisms are rarely if ever done. What changed? Please understanding that is all confusing. Re-baptisms are very much an exception, not the rule. The EOM article is again helpful: Quote A rejuvenation movement initiated by Church leaders in 1856-1857 to rekindle faith and testimony throughout the Church has long been known as the Mormon Reformation. Motivations for reform had as much to do with the lofty expectations of Church leaders as with the spiritual complacency or deficiency of the Saints. The Reformation occurred in a period of optimism and anticipation, as Church leaders hoped to create the unified society viewed as a necessary precursor to the Millennium. With the Saints now secluded in their Rocky Mountain retreat, a reemphasis of basic principles seemed especially appropriate. ... It may be that both critics and apologists have claimed too much for the Reformation. Certainly the reform impulse was on the whole more structured and restrained than has often been believed. Conversely, it appears that the major impact was of short duration and only moderate consequence-perhaps because the Utah expedition and impending armed conflict abruptly ended the main thrust of the movement less than a year after it began. The Reformation period may have been appropriate for that time and place, but the Church today is situated very differently. We are several generations into it, as compared to the Reformation Period, which involved mostly first-generation members and - more importantly - leaders. Quote 4. Mennonites have no equivalent to “exaltation.” In fact, as a Mennonite that word is somewhat repugnant to my heritage and self-concept. I have no interest or desire at all to be glorified or exalted; I think that is an enormous difference in our faiths. I think many Latter-day Saints are likewise a bit unnerved at this concept. It just seems . . . too much. And yet the scriptures speak of us being "joint-heirs with Christ" (Romans 8:17), of "good and faithful servants" being made "ruler{s} over many things" (Matt. 25:21), and that "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him" (1 Cor. 2:9). Quote We are taught to be the quiet in the land; to be humble; not to be ostentatious; to live simply. So are we. Quote When you write to me about exaltation in eternity, that doesn’t resonate with me. Give me one horse, three cows, and an acre of land in the telestial heaven and I will be happy. Exaltation to something higher; especially to Godhood? That goes right over my head. I try to grasp it, but it is so hard. I think those Latter-day Saints who handle their faith the best are those who give the least thought to exaltation in the eternities. Faith. Repentance. Humility. Charity. Hard work. The basics. Quote 5. Perhaps the thing in your replies that confuses me the most and has helped me the most (how about that?) is the challenge of understanding Mormon’s doctrine of universalism on the one hand and exclusion/proprietary/uniqueness on the other. The "universalism" relates to the ultimate, eschatological disposition of the children of God. Most of us, including even people who do horrible things, will end up in a kingdom of glory. I think this reflects the overarching love which God has for His children. The other feature ("exclusion/proprietary/uniqueness") has more to do with the role the LDS Church is supposed to play in this dispensation, namely, to administer saving ordinances, preach the Restored Gospel, etc. I'm not sure what you mean by "exclusion." We are a missionary church. We want literally everyone to join us. That does not seem very "exclusive." Quote On the one hand, you seem to believe that all but a few (sons of perdition) will spent eternity in one level of heaven Yes. Quote with some chance of progressing to a higher one in time. Well, not in time – out of time. Maybe. I don't think we have sufficient information about this idea as to present it as a doctrine of the Church. Quote Yet at the same time unless I am baptized by a Mormon elder my baptism isn’t valid. Again, Mormon "universalism" pertains to eschatology, where we end up at the end of all things. Mormon "uniqueness" or exclusivity centers on its claims of restored priesthood authority, and all that comes with it (open scriptural canon, exclusive administration of saving ordinances, etc.). Quote Since, you believe in cleansing of sin by the properly authorized baptismal waters, then isn’t my entire basic salvation/forgiveness of sins a non-starter for you regardless of how kind you want to be to me? I don't understand. We can and should be kind to you, regardless of the kind of person you are. We are also obligated to share what we believe about the Restored Gospel, including baptism by those in authority, acceptance of The Book of Mormon (which entails acceptance of Joseph Smith as a prophet, acceptance of his claims of the restoration of the priesthood, etc.). These two concepts (treating you with kindness and sharing the Restored Gospel) do not seem to be incompatible. Quote This is a point that causes me nothing but headaches when I try and figure it out. Mormons are both universalists and exclusionists. I don't think that's right. We are not "exclusionists" as far as I can see. We currently have 70,000+ missionaries in every county of the world that will allow it. We expend huge amounts of time, money and effort in sharing what we believe and inviting people who are not in our Church to join it. How is that "exclusionist"? Quote Mennonites are neither – perhaps this is the area of the greatest conundrum. We don’t believe we are the only true and living church on earth. We probably believe we were restoring the gospel from a partial apostasy three hundred years before you were, but we would be roundly scolded for believing we are it – the only true church. Nor, do we believe that because of some internal divine spark that everyone except the very very very worst will experience heaven for all eternity. I try, but I have a very difficult time reconciling Mormon exclusionary practice, with their universalism. I will keep trying, but it is a mystery to me. Again, what "exlusionary practice" do you mean? Thanks, -Smac Edited August 30, 2017 by smac97 2
RevTestament Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 26 minutes ago, Navidad said: But, but, but (I worry I am debating) doesn't the concept that God only accepts and honors Mormon baptism make Him a partial God as well? Even Catholics now accept other baptisms as valid. But not ours - because of their concept of original sin. We do not believe a baby is born in sin and destined for hell if it dies. Since our doctrine disagrees with theirs on this point, the Catholic Church does not accept our baptism. We believe that the sons shall not be punished for the sin of their fathers. Deut 24: 16 The afathers shall not be put to bdeath for the children, neither shall the cchildren be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his down esin. God's being no respecter of persons means that all must abide the same law. He doesn't show favoritism. This leads to a question - why were the Hebrews "His chosen people?" Did He favor them so that only they got prophets? Or did they earn the spot so that He is just keeping His promises? I conclude they must have earned the accolade. They must have been foreordained like the prophets themselves. Thus, God made them His mouth pieces. Since the Lord gives all the opportunity to accept baptism in their next estate, if not in this estate, He is not being partial. All get that opportunity.
Navidad Posted August 30, 2017 Author Posted August 30, 2017 10 minutes ago, Meerkat said: Not at all. In fact it reconciles all people whoever lived through baptism by proxy in Temples, and the other ordinances bringing them all under proper authority, giving all the opportunity to accept or reject in this life or in the spirit world. Ref. 1 Peter 3:18-21, 1 Peter 4:6, 1 Cor. 15:29 1 minute ago, bluebell said: The doctrine is that God only accepts and honors baptisms performed by His authority. It's not about being exclusionary or the idea that God only cares about certain people, it's about God requiring His kingdom to be a kingdom of order. Hmmm. Can you cite me any non-Mormon reference that states that Mormon baptisms are the only ones performed by "His authority?" I don't think you would accept it if I quoted Menno Simons (the founder of Mennonitism) to prove that only Mennonite baptism is authoritative (which of course, he didn't say). Only Mormons believe what you say, and you can cite only Mormon documents to prove it. So, I must accept it as your truth, which indeed is what I am asking. It is your doctrine and it excludes mine. I just want to think better and higher of my Mormon friends. I am afraid I will have to face the facts. I admire so much of what you have said in your posts that I have read; both you and Meerkat. I guess I have to just give it up. Mormon doctrine does teach and Mormons do believe that only their ordinances and sacraments are performed by "God's authority. and are therefore pleasing in His sight. There is no other Christian group on the face of the earth who holds such a strident view. It is what makes Mormonism unique. It is what makes me sad. For 180 years Mormonism has complained about others while all the time holding exclusive beliefs that negate God's acceptance of all other believers, their practices, and their beliefs. Your post has really driven it home for me. I can make it to the telestial and terrestial kingdom without you , but living in the practice of the presence of God is exclusively your prerogative. That certainly doesn't draw me towards your faith. It pushes me away from it. I would share my testimony, but it would be for naught. I don't want to change your beliefs and you don't honor mine as from God - His love or His authority. That makes me so sad. Sorry.
Navidad Posted August 30, 2017 Author Posted August 30, 2017 20 minutes ago, smac97 said: That's probably a fair assessment. I think these "understandings and perceptions" are not substantive, but are instead summed up as "they have some differences with us." My experience has been that there is very little said about other faiths in our meetings and educational venues (BYU, seminaries/institutes, etc.). And what is said is generally quite respectful and/or presented as a mild contrasting element to what we believe. Past generations may have been a bit more in-your-face, but my personal experience has been quite pleasant. For example, my ward has a number of members who are converts from other Christian faiths, mostly Catholic and a few Protestant. These folks will occasionally describe what they believed previously and contrast it with what they believe now. These comparisons have connotations of affection and respect, as most of these folks have family members who are still Catholic or Protestant, and also recognize the innate value of those belief systems. This board is, by design, adversarial. And there is a lot of anonymity. And there are sensitive and difficult topics addressed here. And disrespect for or ridicule of LDS doctrines and beliefs is often present, such that these unworthy sentiments are sometimes reciprocated (or, worse, presented by Latter-day Saints in the first instance). I think the creeds have been a more significant point of analysis/discussion in past generations. Not so much now. I'm not sure Latter-day Saints are "baptismal regenerationalists," at least as you have described it (that is, that we believe in in "salvific powers in the water or in the baptizer’s hands"). It is the sealing of the ordinance by the Holy Spirit of Promise that is determinative as to the efficacy of the ordinance. I think that sealing is conditioned on things like the ordinance having been performed by authority, and the person's subsequent conduct (continuing repentance, "enduring to the end", etc.). Yes, I suppose we do. I think reasonable minds can disagree about that. I am grateful that we can both acknowledge that. Why do you think Jesus went to John the Baptist to be baptized? Why not just anyone? What was unique about John? And what are your thoughts about the Levites in the Old Testament? Why did they have special religious authority the remainder of the tribes did not? Why did Jesus "ordain" the Twelve Apostles (see Mark 3:14)? If it wasn't to invest them with "authority," then what was the purpose? What are your thoughts about the "keys of the kingdom" referenced in Matthew 16:19? Does everyone have, by virtue of faith in Christ, power to "bind" on earth and in heaven? The reformation period lasted about two years, and was extraordinary in many ways. Agreed. From The Encyclopedia of Mormonism: I think the Church was under a lot of pressure, and was undergoing some "growing pains" during this time. Re-baptisms are very much an exception, not the rule. The EOM article is again helpful: The Reformation period may have been appropriate for that time and place, but the Church today is situated very differently. We are several generations into it, as compared to the Reformation Period, which involved mostly first-generation members and - more importantly - leaders. I think many Latter-day Saints are likewise a bit unnerved at this concept. It just seems . . . too much. And yet the scriptures speak of us being "joint-heirs with Christ" (Romans 8:17), of "good and faithful servants" being made "ruler{s} over many things" (Matt. 25:21), and that "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him" (1 Cor. 2:9). So are we. I think those Latter-day Saints who handle their faith the best are those who give the least thought to exaltation in the eternities. Faith. Repentance. Humility. Charity. Hard work. The basics. The "universalism" relates to the ultimate, eschatological disposition of the children of God. Most of us, including even people who do horrible things, will end up in a kingdom of glory. I think this reflects the overarching love which God has for His children. The other feature ("exclusion/proprietary/uniqueness") has more to do with the role the LDS Church is supposed to play in this dispensation, namely, to administer saving ordinances, preach the Restored Gospel, etc. I'm not sure what you mean by "exclusion." We are a missionary church. We want literally everyone to join us. That does not seem very "exclusive." Yes. Maybe. I don't think we have sufficient information about this idea as to present it as a doctrine of the Church. Again, Mormon "universalism" pertains to eschatology, where we end up at the end of all things. Mormon "uniqueness" or exclusivity centers on its claims of restored priesthood authority, and all that comes with it (open scriptural canon, exclusive administration of saving ordinances, etc.). I don't understand. We can and should be kind to you, regardless of the kind of person you are. We are also obligated to share what we believe about the Restored Gospel, including baptism by those in authority, acceptance of The Book of Mormon (which entails acceptance of Joseph Smith as a prophet, acceptance of his claims of the restoration of the priesthood, etc.). These two concepts (treating you with kindness and sharing the Restored Gospel) do not seem to be incompatible. I don't think that's right. We are not "exclusionists" as far as I can see. We currently have 70,000+ missionaries in every county of the world that will allow it. We expend huge amounts of time, money and effort in sharing what we believe and inviting people who are not in our Church to join it. How is that "exclusionist"? Again, what "exlusionary practice" do you mean? Thanks, -Smac That only Mormons have God's authority. That is the ultimate exclusion that destroys the spiritual experience of every other individual Christian and Christian group in the past two thousand years.
Recommended Posts