What Do Mormons Believe About Non-Mormon Christians?

[clarkgoble]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And the Trinity

I think the issue with the Trinity is complicated. For some theologies of the Trinity we have problems obviously. But in terms of the formal creed I honestly don't think we do, although some might. As many have noted Orson Pratt's theology basically is the more Stoic form of the Trinity from Tertullian (possibly influenced by reading about him along with potentially Spinoza and Leibniz). The only real difference is that he adopted Priestly's atoms rather than the Stoic conception of fluids.

The problem is that most Mormons who oppose the Trinity have gotten confused and think the Trinity is modalism, when it isn't. (Not saying you are doing that -- just that I think the more broad opposition relies on an error) The real question is, much as with eastern Christianity's doctrine of deification, to what degree one can separate the doctrine proper from its surrounding doctrines. And what 'added' features are essential to the doctrine. So even many mainstream Christian theologians might say that Augustine's particular formulation of the trinity in terms of platonic relations isn't the doctrine proper but a theology of the doctrine.

Even the most controversial for Mormons aspect of the Trinity, divine simplicity, ends up being complicated when examined closely. By and large while during the period when divine simplicity was defined as a dogma (1215) it was completely unclear what it meant. Later scholastics differed on what it meant. All were much weaker forms of simplicity than what you find in the later neoplatonists of late antiquity. (Say Plotinus) 

Lee Faber wrote the following at his blog: "Christians have historically posited an infinity of objects for the divine mind and even place a Trinity of persons in God. The Church defined divine simplicity as a dogma at Lateran IV in 1215, though obviously this was no novelty. Defined is perhaps too strong a word; it was used in the creed of the council. All that we find is that God is said to be “omnino simplex” which is translated as “completely” or “entirely simple”. Subsequent councils have confirmed this, but as far as I know, have not specified what this means. The scholastics of the 13th and 14th centuries not surprisingly all defend divine simplicity. Yet they have somewhat different conceptions of it. For some, such as Bonaventure and Henry of Ghent, simplicity seems to indicate an activity of the divine essence [...] Aquinas denies a series of possible compositions of God (quantitative parts, form and matter, nature and supposit, essence and existence, genus and difference, potency and act), as well as gives arguments: if God were composite he would be posterior to his parts, composites require an existrinsic cause, etc. [...] Scotus’ gives a series a proofs for divine simplicity based on particular and common middle terms. In the particular middle term he argues that God is not composed of essential parts, quantitative parts, or subject and accident."

Note though that this is talking about the ousia of God. So, as necessitated by the doctrine of the two natures for Christ, how one applies this to the persons can be complicated. Mormons largely differ from other Christians by treating the Father like the son as being complex in natures but usually of a single essence in terms of his divinity. One can again talk about the nature of the Father and whether that is part of the doctrine of the trinity proper.

Now due to his atomism, Pratt's trinity probably would be said to not have divine simplicity. Yet as many recent historians have noted the conception of spirits in the pre-Utah period appears to treat them as simples ontologically. 

One way of putting all this is to ask to what degree simplicity is part of the doctrine of the trinity and to what degree it is its own separate doctrine/dogma. Really we're asking to what degree doctrine has to be treated holistically. Opponents of Mormonism typically will require holism. Thus they critique our doctrine of deification defended in terms of the early Fathers due to our rejection of creation ex nihilo which many of the key Fathers accepted. The same sort of thing goes on with the Trinity too. I'd just say that the formal creed of the Trinity seems acceptable for Mormonism even if certain Mormon theologies may oppose it.

Edited August 31, 2017 by clarkgoble

[pogi]

14 hours ago, Navidad said:

A quick and important answer. I believe today the majority of evangelicals, including Mennonites are inclusivists.  That is a belief that those who never hear the message of the good news of Christ will be included by God's grace in those who will be redeemed in the final judgment. When all are judged God will use his mercy and love to redeem those who never heard. I personally know only a few evangelicals who today don't believe that. That is certainly a change from 100 or even perhaps fifty years ago. Thanks.

I am going to alter my trajectory from my last unfinished post.

I am glad to see that change you speak of!  But I do question, by what authority did the change come about?  Did God suddenly change his mind about the infidels?  Clearly not all Evangelicals believe the way you do.  So, if all Evangelicals have the spirit and authority of God, to speak the mind and will of God in matters such as this, how can both be right?  If both cannot be right, then how can you know who is wrong?  Is God sending all non-Christian infidels to hell or not?  Please tell me, by what authority you answer your question?  If you answer "by the authority of Christ and the spirit", then are you saying that those who oppose/d your proclamation (including the 2 millennia of Christians which lived before you) did not have the spirit or the authority of Christ?  

There are other Christians (including Mormons) who disagree with you on baptism and insist that it is required for salvation/exaltation.  The same questions above apply here.  It appears that wherever there is a disagreement, you seem to take the hollier-than-thou attitude of "unrequited love" towards those of us who apparently have less authority or are less sensitive to the spirit than you.  Wouldn't it be best to simply say "all of Gods creations will be saved with him through the grace of Christ"?  That way, you will appear to be the most charitable and loving of all Christians on earth.  What is to stop me from believing that, or making that proclamation?  Nothing, right?  That is why Christianity is so splintered and chaotic!  There is not one authority out there (well actually there is ). 

Is baptism required or not?  Why?  How do you know?  What authority makes you right and us wrong?  I ask because you seem to be offended that we claim sole authority, yet it feels like you are exclusive of our authority in favor of yours.  How is that any different from what you are accusing us of?  Clearly, only one of us has proper authority on the matter of baptism (because God will only authorize the truth), or else neither of us do.  There are no other options. 

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I think the issue with the Trinity is complicated. For some theologies of the Trinity we have problems obviously. But in terms of the formal creed I honestly don't think we do, although some might. As many have noted Orson Pratt's theology basically is the more Stoic form of the Trinity from Tertullian (possibly influenced by reading about him along with potentially Spinoza and Leibniz). The only real difference is that he adopted Priestly's atoms rather than the Stoic conception of fluids.

The problem is that most Mormons who oppose the Trinity have gotten confused and think the Trinity is modalism, when it isn't. (Not saying you are doing that -- just that I think the more broad opposition relies on an error) The real question is, much as with eastern Christianity's doctrine of deification, to what degree one can separate the doctrine proper from its surrounding doctrines. And what 'added' features are essential to the doctrine. So even many mainstream Christian theologians might say that Augustine's particular formulation of the trinity in terms of platonic relations isn't the doctrine proper but a theology of the doctrine.

Even the most controversial for Mormons aspect of the Trinity, divine simplicity, ends up being complicated when examined closely. By and large while during the period when divine simplicity was defined as a dogma (1215) it was completely unclear what it meant. Later scholastics differed on what it meant. All were much weaker forms of simplicity than what you find in the later neoplatonists of late antiquity. (Say Plotinus) 

Lee Faber wrote the following at his blog: "Christians have historically posited an infinity of objects for the divine mind and even place a Trinity of persons in God. The Church defined divine simplicity as a dogma at Lateran IV in 1215, though obviously this was no novelty. Defined is perhaps too strong a word; it was used in the creed of the council. All that we find is that God is said to be “omnino simplex” which is translated as “completely” or “entirely simple”. Subsequent councils have confirmed this, but as far as I know, have not specified what this means. The scholastics of the 13th and 14th centuries not surprisingly all defend divine simplicity. Yet they have somewhat different conceptions of it. For some, such as Bonaventure and Henry of Ghent, simplicity seems to indicate an activity of the divine essence [...] Aquinas denies a series of possible compositions of God (quantitative parts, form and matter, nature and supposit, essence and existence, genus and difference, potency and act), as well as gives arguments: if God were composite he would be posterior to his parts, composites require an existrinsic cause, etc. [...] Scotus’ gives a series a proofs for divine simplicity based on particular and common middle terms. In the particular middle term he argues that God is not composed of essential parts, quantitative parts, or subject and accident."

Note though that this is talking about the ousia of God. So, as necessitated by the doctrine of the two natures for Christ, how one applies this to the persons can be complicated. Mormons largely differ from other Christians by treating the Father like the son as being complex in natures but usually of a single essence in terms of his divinity. One can again talk about the nature of the Father and whether that is part of the doctrine of the trinity proper.

Now due to his atomism, Pratt's trinity probably would be said to not have divine simplicity. Yet as many recent historians have noted the conception of spirits in the pre-Utah period appears to treat them as simples ontologically. 

One way of putting all this is to ask to what degree simplicity is part of the doctrine of the trinity and to what degree it is its own separate doctrine/dogma. Really we're asking to what degree doctrine has to be treated holistically. Opponents of Mormonism typically will require holism. Thus they critique our doctrine of deification defended in terms of the early Fathers due to our rejection of creation ex nihilo which many of the key Fathers accepted. The same sort of thing goes on with the Trinity too. I'd just say that the formal creed of the Trinity seems acceptable for Mormonism even if certain Mormon theologies may oppose it.

Yep.

You did all that for Lil ole me? ;-)

[thesometimesaint]

16 hours ago, Navidad said:

A quick and important answer. I believe today the majority of evangelicals, including Mennonites are inclusivists.  That is a belief that those who never hear the message of the good news of Christ will be included by God's grace in those who will be redeemed in the final judgment. When all are judged God will use his mercy and love to redeem those who never heard. I personally know only a few evangelicals who today don't believe that. That is certainly a change from 100 or even perhaps fifty years ago. Thanks.

Except that no one can come to the Father without his Son.  IOW Everyone must accept the Restored Gospel in this life, or the next, to be with God. In Mormonism everyone will have all the knowledge they need and the opportunity to accept or reject the Atonement.

[hagoth7]

On 8/30/2017 at 1:21 AM, mapman said:

I'm not sure that I can answer all of your questions, but I think the clearest and most official teaching about other religions is a 1978 statement by the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) about God's love for all mankind. You can read it here. Basically it says that we believe that all (or at least many) religions, churches, and philosophies are inspired and part of God's plan for his children, and that salvation will be available to all people at some point in this life or in the life to come. I'm not aware of any church teachings specifically about other Christian churches, just that we don't generally believe in an invisible, universal Christian church that transcends denominational lines. Instead, as far as I know, we would consider all other Christian denominations to be in the same category as non-Christian religions as far as their ability to save you goes.

My view is a bit different than yours. 

I view the faithful among other Christian faiths to be tribes in latter-day Israel. And whether one is part of Christ's church has more to do with what's under the hood than what pew one sits on or which denomination's roll one's name is found on.

[mapman]

20 hours ago, Navidad said:

Our way to use a derivative of your term is Christianity that is our religion. Mennonitism and Mormonism are two examples of Christian faiths. You are correct we wouldn't include non-Christian religions in that. Some of us are working very hard to help our co-religionists see Mormons as in the Christian faith. So yes, we are talking about Christians and I believe as well those who have never heard. But Mormons don't include as you say other Christian faiths in your "religion, very narrowly defined as one group - Mormonism.  Mennonitism is not my religion. It is my faith expression of my religion. I would like to say that for Mormons, Mormonism isn't their religion, it is their faith express of their religion. But I no longer believe that is true. You are right, that isn't offensive, it is just disappointing to one who has tried so hard and defended Mormons as hard or harder than Alexander Doniphan did! Ha!
 

I'm sorry if anything I said upset you. I appreciate your efforts at dialogue and defense of Mormons. I'm sure it is something that has born good fruits. I think I can speak for most Mormons by saying that we appreciate it when other Christians defend our being categorized as Christians. It is very frustrating when people think we don't believe in Jesus or in the Bible because they were told we aren't Christians.

I'd also just say that I was trying to articulate what I understand our doctrine to be, and that there could potentially be room in Mormon theology for developing a closer identity to the Christian religion as a whole. I don't know that it would ever happen or that it would be what God wants, but who knows what the future holds.

[mapman]

4 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

My view is a bit different than yours. 

I view the faithful among other Christian faiths to be tribes in latter-day Israel. And whether one is part of Christ's church has more to do with what's under the hood than what pew one sits on or which denomination's roll one's name is found on.

Well, it was meant more as an example of how God can have different roles for different groups of people, not that we are literally like the Levites. Nephi's vision talks about there being two great churches, the church of Christ and the church of the devil, so I think there is support for believing in an invisible church of disciples that transcends religious boundaries. Though I'd think that non-Christians can be followers of Christ as well even without knowing it, like the good people who prayed to Tash in the Chronicles of Narnia.

I also think that the scriptures are pretty clear that the visible organization known as the LDS church has a special part to play in the last days. I have thought about how members of our church are mostly adopted into Ephraim and how the scriptures talk about the special role Ephraim plays in the latter-days. Maybe other people in God's service represent other tribes in the role they play in God's plan.

[RevTestament]

On 8/30/2017 at 2:46 PM, clarkgoble said:

The other interesting thing is that since the key terms are so vague and the way the creed has been interpreted so varied there's really nothing in it that I object to. The main points we really break with are over creation ex nihilo and the embodiment of the Father. Yet those aren't part of the creed.

Well to the extent spirit is matter or substance, there may be some kind of homoousios, but personally I don't think so. I think them being one in spirit is more of a bond like a family bond. Further, the Nicene Creed fails to declare the Holy Ghost has homoousios  with the Father and Son - a oversight clearly showing the man-made nature of the creed. However, anymore, that is not what I strongly object to. Now it is the trinitarian doctrine on the begotten nature of the Son, which I feel makes HIm unbegotten in any real sense, which I believe is contrary to scripture. 

I also have real trouble anethematizing anyone who doesn't see things exactly my way - I don't think understanding the nature of God is critical to our salvation. I believe God left His nature open somewhat on purpose. Whether someone believes the Father and Son are homoousios or not is not critical to their salvation, but I certainly am not going to exalt myself to tell God His nature - that He is homoousios with His Son. So no, I am not going to agree with that creed.

However, there are other aspects of the Nicene Creed I disagree with. It makes the Son "immutable." The scriptures indicated there are many things about the Son which change - He inherits names, government, is exalted, inherits the name of Eternal Father, etc. The trinitarian doctrine makes Him the Son forevermore. That takes away His inheritance as I see it. While that is not in the Nicene Creed itself, that is how it got interpreted later, and how the doctrine of the trinity evolved, so on that basis it makes the creed personally objectionable to me.

The language about being begotten, not made, and not a creature is kinda superfluous to me. I don't agree that Yeshua is one of God's "created creatures," but I am not going to have a cow about it if someone believes that but still believes in Him as our Savior, redeemer, and resurrector.

Edited September 1, 2017 by RevTestament

[RevTestament]

On 8/30/2017 at 5:57 PM, Navidad said:

A quick and important answer. I believe today the majority of evangelicals, including Mennonites are inclusivists.  That is a belief that those who never hear the message of the good news of Christ will be included by God's grace in those who will be redeemed in the final judgment. When all are judged God will use his mercy and love to redeem those who never heard. I personally know only a few evangelicals who today don't believe that. That is certainly a change from 100 or even perhaps fifty years ago. Thanks.

Thanks for your reply Navidad.

Doesn't that concept do away with a need for a Savior? I mean if He is going to save us without any acceptance or repentance on our part, what is the point of needing a Savior? Or of creating us in the first place?

Edited September 1, 2017 by RevTestament

[SamIam]

On 8/29/2017 at 7:35 PM, 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. 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.

This is such a broad subject that surely there will be much I completely overlook. To your concerns about variable answers, I try not to share opinions but will generally attach my material to credible sources to give it a bit more sustainment.  As well I tend to being very straightforward so please do not mistake candor for anything other than seeking clarity without ambiguity. Surely one element you will run into will be the mentality of the individual.  One may say that we feel without the ordinances that they cannot attain the highest possibilities and another may focus on that we appreciate whatever testimony of Christ they have and only seek to expand upon that to enable the greatest blessings.  Kind of the same thing but one comes from a cannot perspective while the second is a can perspective.

One thing you may notice is that while there are differences of perspective, the leadership has a preference for our response to nonmembers.  If I was asking your question I would rather be aware of what is the council those who Shepard provide versus to observations of those who may be in greater need of that Shepherding.  One such bit of insight is provided by an insightful leader from some years ago:

Quote

Other criticisms we receive from nonmembers are a little more painful. Criticism always hurts most when we deserve it. There are a few active members who don’t live up to what they have been taught. They can be condescending, intolerant, or clannish. Such characteristics strike at the very heart of the second great commandment, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” (Matt. 22:39.) One can be a friend to all without participating in all of their activities. How shortsighted one is to place church denominational limits on his friendships. How one robs himself when his friendship is contingent upon another’s willingness to listen to the first discussion. (Bishop Glenn L. Pace,Second Counselor in the Presiding BishopricMay of 1989)

OF course, most often I have observed some of this behavior more in Utah than other locations I have lived and so again answers or observations you may make will hopefully be appreciative of this fact.  However, that is not to say that some of the greatest members I have ever known are also found in Utah as well.

Now if we change the perspective a little it also provides insight.  In this instance I provide an answer published in a church publication which is responding to the question of an young person who claims there are no members in their area to date would it be okay to date nonmembers? This provides some of the practical considerations that are consistent with the majority of LDS desires for their children as it relates to nonmember relationships:

Quote

• Date only those who share your goals and standards.

• Try to focus on the social, not the romantic, aspects of dating until you might consider marriage.

• Consider if dating is really necessary at this time in your life.

• Temple marriage should be your goal.

• Pray to know what is right and to have the strength to do it.

President Spencer W. Kimball counseled: “Do not take the chance of dating nonmembers, or members who are untrained and faithless. … One cannot afford to take a chance on falling in love with someone who may never accept the gospel (The Miracle of Forgiveness, 241–42; italics added).

... If you date someone who doesn’t hold high standards, the romantic feelings you may develop for that person could pressure you to compromise your standards. Temple marriage should be your goal. If you avoid dating situations where you may feel pressure to compromise your standards—even if it means postponing dating—the Lord will bless you. (Q&A: Questions and Answers,  Answers are intended for help and perspective, not as pronouncements of Church doctrine. Ensign, July 2001)

Of course the goal here is not to discuss dating but to extrapolate from this basic principle some real perceptions of the concerns one might find about a non-member relationship developing with a young member.  We do genuinely feel that from the practical side of what we can predict that  a marriage between members is preferred as this allows the couple to progress in the gospel at a pace not affected by one not sharing a sense of earnest desire concerning the church.  It is a very real concern that by marrying a non-member our children are putting at risk their potential for family association in the hereafter.  OF course we often see where there are occasions where a nonmember subsequently joins and that is an exciting time as well.

Again, another perspective is provided when we let the previous situation develop to the point of a mixed marriage.  Once the horse is out of the barn so to speak, it is no longer a discussion about looking for religiously compatible partners but now becomes one of making the best of the split family:

Quote

Members can and should include part-member families in ward activities and social circles without forcing nonmembers to take part in these activities. Home and visiting teachers, bishops, and other ward members can support members and nonmembers in part-member families by including them in neighborhood parties, by giving members rides to church and other activities, and by just being friends.

When ward members show part-member families love, hearts can soften and strong relationships can form, regardless of whether or not the nonmembers of the part-member families join the Church.( Living the Gospel Alone in Your Family,  By Megan Armknecht September 2017)

This response is published in the Ensign but it represent the insight of a, I believe, lay member in the church.  If nothing else it illustrates that we want to respect the rights of the nonmember partner making them feel loved and appreciated without be stifled. Of course we have no objections if we can win them over to membership either but we do try to allow the nonmember to be who and what they wish to be relative to the church.

So in the process of exploring, one decides to attend a traditional sacrament setting.  One thing is that there will be a period of a few minutes where the sacrament is passed.  Members have as many responses as members to this situation when the sacrament is passed to a non-member. On a rare occasion someone may be excessively protective and try to limit a nonmember from partaking.  This is not common but again here is a quote illustrating the leaderships perspective:

Quote

As you know, the bread and water of the sacrament are meant for Church members so we can renew our baptismal covenants. However, we should not do anything during sacrament meeting to prevent nonmembers from partaking of the sacrament.

It’s good to invite nonmember friends and family to church, and we want them to feel welcome and comfortable in our meetings. It would be helpful to prepare them for sacrament meeting by explaining the purpose of the sacrament and what will happen during the meeting. If they ask whether they should take the sacrament, simply tell them that they may choose to do so but that it is intended for Church members, who are renewing their baptismal covenants. (Can nonmembers take the sacrament?, Ensign March 2012)

The essence of the LDS perspective is that baptism is not efficacious unless it is performed by one holding the priesthood.  Thus whether or not you have been baptized elsewhere for us it is not of force as an official commitment with God and his Son. So it serves little purpose for a nonmember to partake having never made the covenants that an LDS baptism entails.  The sacrament prayers are a good resource to learn what those covenants are and these covenants are to be renewed weekly by membership. It is a very important and sacred ordinance for us. 

Another extrapolation can be made from these comments made about temple marriage concerning those who seek opportunities for temple ordinances and such when there is a nonmember situation at hand :

Quote

But the doors are locked! They themselves have locked them, and the doors have often rusted on their hinges. Someone did not teach these individuals sufficiently, or they did not study the scriptures and they did not understand, or they ignored the warnings which came to them. They married out of the Church. Perhaps he was a good man. Maybe he was handsome. He may have been cultured and well trained; but he did not have the qualification that he needed most and which they overlooked. He did not have membership in the kingdom; he did not have the priesthood, the ordinances, and the righteousness that would carry them to exaltation.

No implication is here made that all members of the Church are worthy and that all nonmembers are unworthy, but eternal marriage cannot be had outside of the temple, and nonmembers are not permitted to go into the temple. Of course, they can become members if they are interested enough and prove that interest.

Without common faith, trouble lies ahead. When two people marry who have different standards, different approaches, and different backgrounds, it is a very difficult thing. There are exceptions, but the rule is a harsh and unhappy one. Religious differences imply wider areas of conflict. Church loyalties clash, and family loyalties clash.

Paul said: “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?” (2 Cor. 6:14). Perhaps Paul wanted them to see that religious differences are fundamental differences.(The Importance of Celestial Marriage By President Spencer W. Kimball From addresses delivered 22 October 1976 at the Salt Lake Institute of Religion and 5 February 1978 at Ricks College, Rexburg, Idaho October 1979)

This makes several implications.  WE firmly believe that there are ordinances that a couple must partake of as a couple in the temple.  The ordinances are preparatory to binding a family and children together so that they can remain a family in the eternities. They are able to prepare to for additional blessings which allow them the greatest blessing of all to dwell where God dwells.  We believe that no non-member can ever have such blessings if they refuse the gospel. They cannot be sealed to their families, they will not have their children or wives in the eternities.  These issues may cause hard feelings as nonmember spouses will not be able to attend the weddings of their children if they should elect to marry in the temple. You can probably guess that can create bitter feelings.

There is so much more that could be said but I am just trying to cover a couple of things and hope it is of benefit. I am not one for unsubstantiated opinions and I think your question is not best served by such.  If you have particular questions on doctrine I maintain thousands of quotes on such for my own research use that if can be helpful I am happy to provide.

Edited September 1, 2017 by SamIam
spacing repair

[clarkgoble]

8 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Well to the extent spirit is matter or substance, there may be some kind of homoousios, but personally I don't think so. I think them being one in spirit is more of a bond like a family bond.

Yes, that's the more nominalist take that you see among figures like McConkie. Historically in the medieval tradition there were nominalist takes on the Trinity such as Roscelin’s but they were usually declared heretical. (Nominalism is the position that there are only particular things and that abstractions are due to the mind interpreting particular things) Even Ockham was charged with heresy in 1339 although nominalist takes on the Trinity weren't fully declared incompatible with Catholicism until the Council of Trent.

Within Mormonism while nominalism was the dominant position in the 20th century (largely due to nominalism being the dominant position in American culture) more realist takes on the divine unity aren't uncommon. Orson Pratt's take was a materialist conception and somewhat nominalistic. But one can think the divine unity is more than just mental agreement or similarity within Mormonism. While I tend to agree with Mark that such disputes aren't that significant unless we can show a practical difference, I'd also call myself a realist about the divine unity.

Quote

However, there are other aspects of the Nicene Creed I disagree with. It makes the Son "immutable." 

The question is what immutability means within the creed. Typically it's interpreted more in the sense of being uncreated and simple in essence (without removable parts or properties) not that he can't change in any way. Mormons definitely accept that uncreated aspect. It's true that some, especially the more platonic, push immutability farther than that. I'm not convinced it's required for the doctrine of the Trinity. Many aspects of say Augustine's theology aren't accepted fully - i.e. one can accept the Nicene Creed without accepting all elements of Augustine's thought on the matter.

 

Edited September 1, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

22 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yep.

You did all that for Lil ole me? ;-)

Not really. It's a pet peeve of mine. I suspect we largely agree on whether any of it matters unless we can demonstrate a practical difference. However I also think it is helpful for dialog with other Christians to recognize our dispute is primarily about continuing revelation, creation ex nihilo, and the embodiment of the father. The Trinity is what typically gets brought up but is much more a side issue in my view.

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Well to the extent spirit is matter or substance, there may be some kind of homoousios, but personally I don't think so. I think them being one in spirit is more of a bond like a family bond. Further, the Nicene Creed fails to declare the Holy Ghost has homoousios  with the Father and Son - a oversight clearly showing the man-made nature of the creed. However, anymore, that is not what I strongly object to. Now it is the trinitarian doctrine on the begotten nature of the Son, which I feel makes HIm unbegotten in any real sense, which I believe is contrary to scripture. 

I also have real trouble anethematizing anyone who doesn't see things exactly my way - I don't think understanding the nature of God is critical to our salvation. I believe God left His nature open somewhat on purpose. Whether someone believes the Father and Son are homoousios or not is not critical to their salvation, but I certainly am not going to exalt myself to tell God His nature - that He is homoousios with His Son. So no, I am not going to agree with that creed.

However, there are other aspects of the Nicene Creed I disagree with. It makes the Son "immutable." The scriptures indicated there are many things about the Son which change - He inherits names, government, is exalted, inherits the name of Eternal Father, etc. The trinitarian doctrine makes Him the Son forevermore. That takes away His inheritance as I see it. While that is not in the Nicene Creed itself, that is how it got interpreted later, and how the doctrine of the trinity evolved, so on that basis it makes the creed personally objectionable to me.

The language about being begotten, not made, and not a creature is kinda superfluous to me. I don't agree that Yeshua is one of God's "created creatures," but I am not going to have a cow about it if someone believes that but still believes in Him as our Savior, redeemer, and resurrector.

If knowing the exact nature of God is important to salvation, we are all in BIG trouble!

I am reminded of Augustine's story of the boy digging a hole on the beach trying to put the ocean into the hole.

If God is immutable he cannot hear and answer our prayers.  To answer a prayer he must go from state 1- "God before hearing the prayer" to state 2- "God after answering the prayer".   Interaction itself is change in both parties.

Dude- you have changed my life!  (I won't say for better or worse.....)

 

Edited September 1, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

On 8/31/2017 at 0:36 AM, mfbukowski said:

 

Why should we accept non-Mormon sources?   We are Mormons!

But it appears to me you are doing the same here that you accuse us of doing.  You are not accepting our beliefs as from God so what is he difference?  (I also do not see debating as a dirty word- I think we need to stand up for ourselves,  even Jesus cleansed the temple more than once and called people "vipers" etc.)

How can one be a Mennonite if it is not somehow "better" than NOT being a Mennonite?  If all faiths are of equal worth to God why have any faith at all?  Honestly that makes no sense to me.

I am going through about 100 messages that are arrived since I left home yesterday morning. I can't help but reply to this one. I indeed do not believe that being Mennonite is "better" (your word, not mine) than being Mormon, Baptist, or Episcopalian (just a few examples).  The idea that one Christian faith group is better than another has never crossed my mind. I have my beliefs as you have yours. Mine aren't better; I am not a better man than you for having mine and not yours. God doesn't love me better than he does you. You are reflecting much of what I have thought and felt while driving yesterday and while getting caught up with things today. Mormons do think they are "better;" because you have a certain belief about baptism, its nature and its bestowal, you believe yours is "better" than everyone else in fact, the only one that is valid. I just read a post in which the poster indicated that 1. when talking about members' and non-members' standards, his assumption was the members' standards would obviously be higher (better?). 2. That baptismal covenants made by members are higher and deeper (better) than those of non-members; 3. The assumption is that a member has a deeper (better) commitment to spirituality than a non member; 4. The righteousness of a member is somehow greater (better) than that of a non-member. Huh? "Better" isn't in our vocabulary. Maybe that makes Mennonites "better!" Ha! It sure seems to me that Mormons just simply assume that you are "better" hence the exclusivity. 

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

If knowing the exact nature of God is important to salvation, we are all in BIG trouble!

I am reminded of Augustine's story of the boy digging a hole on the beach trying to put the ocean into the hole.

If God is immutable he cannot hear and answer our prayers.  To answer a prayer he must go from state 1- "God before hearing the prayer" to state 2- "God after answering the prayer".   Interaction itself is change in both parties.

Dude- you have changed my life!  (I won't say for better or worse.....)

Oh, you don't know how happy you have made me!! LOL. So glad to know I have saved you from your deception!! Or at least saved you from your misconception... 

I have spent at least 40 years of my life trying to understand God.... and am still doing it. So glad I don't have to perfectly understand Him to be saved.... but I will say He has revealed much to me... still so much more to learn though.... although that will probably only bring more responsibility, and I can't handle what I have... as everyone here has probably seen, I am also quite imperfect. Thanks for the chuckle friend.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Huh? "Better" isn't in our vocabulary. Maybe that makes Mennonites "better!" Ha! It sure seems to me that Mormons just simply assume that you are "better" hence the exclusivity. 

I must have touched something in you if you decided to respond- others said the same thing.

Well maybe in that one comment, even if joking, you have a glimmer of my point which it seems you have misunderstood, yet again.

You are a Mennonite for a reason.   I haven't a clue why you are.  Surely you must have a reason unless you drew straws and chose a faith at random.

I would like to know that reason and why you do not see it as "better".

If you do not see it as better, then please join us!   It makes no sense.  You should be Jewish and Buddhist and Mormon and Mennonite all at once if God doesn't care what denomination you are.

There is no point in BEING in ANY church if you do not see it as being "better".   Why be a Christian at all?   I think you have never thought about that, having been raised as you were?

[Navidad]

On 8/31/2017 at 10:09 AM, mfbukowski said:

Yep.

You did all that for Lil ole me? ;-)

You all seem obsessed with issues related to the trinity and the NIcene Creed. No one ever based their salvation and eternal destiny on either!

[Navidad]

On 8/31/2017 at 8:58 AM, pogi said:

I am going to alter my trajectory from my last unfinished post.

I am glad to see that change you speak of!  But I do question, by what authority did the change come about?  Did God suddenly change his mind about the infidels?  Clearly not all Evangelicals believe the way you do.  So, if all Evangelicals have the spirit and authority of God, to speak the mind and will of God in matters such as this, how can both be right?  If both cannot be right, then how can you know who is wrong?  Is God sending all non-Christian infidels to hell or not?  Please tell me, by what authority you answer your question?  If you answer "by the authority of Christ and the spirit", then are you saying that those who oppose/d your proclamation (including the 2 millennia of Christians which lived before you) did not have the spirit or the authority of Christ?  

There are other Christians (including Mormons) who disagree with you on baptism and insist that it is required for salvation/exaltation.  The same questions above apply here.  It appears that wherever there is a disagreement, you seem to take the hollier-than-thou attitude of "unrequited love" towards those of us who apparently have less authority or are less sensitive to the spirit than you.  Wouldn't it be best to simply say "all of Gods creations will be saved with him through the grace of Christ"?  That way, you will appear to be the most charitable and loving of all Christians on earth.  What is to stop me from believing that, or making that proclamation?  Nothing, right?  That is why Christianity is so splintered and chaotic!  There is not one authority out there (well actually there is ). 

Is baptism required or not?  Why?  How do you know?  What authority makes you right and us wrong?  I ask because you seem to be offended that we claim sole authority, yet it feels like you are exclusive of our authority in favor of yours.  How is that any different from what you are accusing us of?  Clearly, only one of us has proper authority on the matter of baptism (because God will only authorize the truth), or else neither of us do.  There are no other options. 

 

Interesting, I have never said or implied that I think your mode of baptism is "wrong." Is it required? I think not? That may make me wrong. The difference is I am  not exclusive about it. I will grant you your perspective and beliefs and you will not grant me mine. Mine is invalid. Yours is the only one that is correct! Why does only one mode of baptism have to be the only correct mode? That is beyond me!

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, Navidad said:

You all seem obsessed with issues related to the trinity and the NIcene Creed. No one ever based their salvation and eternal destiny on either!

Wanna bet?

Why don't you answer my question about why being a Mennonite is better?

I cannot base my life or belief in God in a belief that is nonsensical to me.  Three persons in one?  How could anyone believe that?  And that gives me salvation?  From what?

Why should i believe I even need salvation if it cannot be rationally explained?

 

[mfbukowski]

22 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Interesting, I have never said or implied that I think your mode of baptism is "wrong." Is it required? I think not? That may make me wrong. The difference is I am  not exclusive about it. I will grant you your perspective and beliefs and you will not grant me mine. Mine is invalid. Yours is the only one that is correct! Why does only one mode of baptism have to be the only correct mode? That is beyond me!

Why have baptism at all?  Why be Christian at all?  You will not answer because based on what you are saying, God doesn't care if you are Christian even

[Navidad]

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Why have baptism at all?  Why be Christian at all?  You will not answer because based on what you are saying, God doesn't care if you are Christian even

Huh? I didn't answer because I was having dinner with my family! I simply do not believe that being Mennonite is "better." I don't think God thinks Mennonites are better. I simply do not believe that being Mormon is "better, " nor do I think God thinks Mormons are better.  My faith is not a contest with any other group. I am sorry if that makes no sense to you.  

I have much less surety than you do that I know the full mind or plan of God. I am much less sure that I have all the answers. I don't need to have all the answers. That is why it is called "faith." Mormons seem to be masters of certainty - until it comes to prayer for the temple. Wow, what a sad debate.  I would offer a much simpler answer.   And that answer is "We don't know!" End of debate. I am perfectly comfortable with ambiguity when it comes to understanding God. The God I believe in is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. How could I possibly understand that and wrap it up in a box with a neat bow? That is why He is God and I am not. You might say you are not "God yet" and I might say "I won't ever be God." OK. We disagree. I don't know if you are right and I am wrong. Quite frankly, more importantly that doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is struggling with my life right here and now.  I want to honor Him with my word and deeds (Col 3: 17 is my life verse. 

Why have baptism? Because we have a model in the New Testament of baptism. The Saint is concerned about "authority." I believe Jesus Christ has all the authority that is needed. His death and resurrection proved He has authority over Satan and death itself. What more authority could we need or want?  I rest in his authority; I have no need or desire to share in it.  My concept of leadership is wrapped up in service; not in authority. I lose my leadership effectiveness when I rely on my authority. I carefully observe Mennonite elders and leaders and look for their spiritual leadership, the gifts of the spirit, and evidence of their maturity in Christ. I fortunately live among Mormons so I can look for the same thing in Mormon elders, bishops, presidents, and the like. I interact with them almost daily. I know this will drive you nuts, but I see pretty much the same in both: faithfulness and inconsistency. Those are probably the same things folks who watch me, see in me. Sorry. I sense no greater spirituality in a Mormon leader than in a Mennonite leader. I respect, honor, and admire both. I don't assume that the Mennonite is more spiritual than the Mormon or the other way around. I answered a message earlier about a post I read this afternoon where the Mormon writer on this forum just assumes that when a Mormon interacts with a non-Mormon,  the Mormon is more righteous, has higher standards, has deeper covenants, etc. 

Enough for now. I really enjoy the conversation. I have struggled a lot the last few days.  I was really wrong about Mormons. That is my problem not yours. I will try and explain that better tomorrow. 

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Is it required? I think not? That may make me wrong. The difference is I am  not exclusive about it. 

If you are wrong, what difference does your point make?  Because your opinion, your empty inclusivity, and false presumptions won't really have any validity in the end, will they? If you are right, then I am included aparently, so no worries!

First of all, it is not about what I think or you think in the end.  It is not me, or any other Mormon, who is being inclusive or exclusive of anyone...we are not your judge.  I can't keep you out of heaven even if I wanted to, so what are we excluding you from exactly?  As if you or I really have a say!  

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

 I will grant you your perspective and beliefs and you will not grant me mine. Mine is invalid. Yours is the only one that is correct! Why does only one mode of baptism have to be the only correct mode? That is beyond me!

I don't understand why you think what you are doing is any different.  You think that my belief that baptism is required for exaltation is invalid don't you?  You don't really accept that do you?  We obviously can't both be right on that point.  I accept your perspective, how could I not...it is yours after all, not mine.

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Why does only one mode of baptism have to be the only correct mode? That is beyond me!

Proper authority and order makes sense in binding covenants and contracts.  It makes sense in the secular world and it makes sense in the spiritual world as well.  We are not asking you to take our word for it.

Edited September 2, 2017 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Huh? I didn't answer because I was having dinner with my family! I simply do not believe that being Mennonite is "better." I don't think God thinks Mennonites are better. I simply do not believe that being Mormon is "better, " nor do I think God thinks Mormons are better.  My faith is not a contest with any other group. I am sorry if that makes no sense to you.  

I have much less surety than you do that I know the full mind or plan of God. I am much less sure that I have all the answers. I don't need to have all the answers. That is why it is called "faith." Mormons seem to be masters of certainty - until it comes to prayer for the temple. Wow, what a sad debate.  I would offer a much simpler answer.   And that answer is "We don't know!" End of debate. I am perfectly comfortable with ambiguity when it comes to understanding God. The God I believe in is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. How could I possibly understand that and wrap it up in a box with a neat bow? That is why He is God and I am not. You might say you are not "God yet" and I might say "I won't ever be God." OK. We disagree. I don't know if you are right and I am wrong. Quite frankly, more importantly that doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is struggling with my life right here and now.  I want to honor Him with my word and deeds (Col 3: 17 is my life verse. 

Why have baptism? Because we have a model in the New Testament of baptism. The Saint is concerned about "authority." I believe Jesus Christ has all the authority that is needed. His death and resurrection proved He has authority over Satan and death itself. What more authority could we need or want?  I rest in his authority; I have no need or desire to share in it.  My concept of leadership is wrapped up in service; not in authority. I lose my leadership effectiveness when I rely on my authority. I carefully observe Mennonite elders and leaders and look for their spiritual leadership, the gifts of the spirit, and evidence of their maturity in Christ. I fortunately live among Mormons so I can look for the same thing in Mormon elders, bishops, presidents, and the like. I interact with them almost daily. I know this will drive you nuts, but I see pretty much the same in both: faithfulness and inconsistency. Those are probably the same things folks who watch me, see in me. Sorry. I sense no greater spirituality in a Mormon leader than in a Mennonite leader. I respect, honor, and admire both. I don't assume that the Mennonite is more spiritual than the Mormon or the other way around. I answered a message earlier about a post I read this afternoon where the Mormon writer on this forum just assumes that when a Mormon interacts with a non-Mormon,  the Mormon is more righteous, has higher standards, has deeper covenants, etc. 

Enough for now. I really enjoy the conversation. I have struggled a lot the last few days.  I was really wrong about Mormons. That is my problem not yours. I will try and explain that better tomorrow. 

Still no answer on why Christianity or why the Bible.

I have asked for days, not dinner time.

I am sure it is because it is "better" or else you would not be one.  So far it seems you still do not understand the question and I feel you are about to make the wrong conclusions because you do not understand the question.

All you answers contain assumptions you are not even questioning, while you apparently think you are questioning, all the while demonstrating that you have cler preferences while protesting you have no preferences.

And why is it better to not have preferences?  Why is it better to not be better?

Your arguments are circular.  I really like you and I just want you to see that!  You will judge us for thinking we are "better" (which is incorrect since everyone will eventually see the path- ) while not understanding you think YOUR path is "better" by not being better!

I believe that God has individually verified every single of my beliefs to me personally.  That is why I think I have it right- because God told me.

And though I cannot speak for all Mormons, that is our belief, that we should "prove every principle" and "ask God" for wisdom

Thess 5

Quote

17Pray without ceasing. 18In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. 19Quench not the Spirit. 20Despise not prophesyings. 21Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 

James 1

Quote

 

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.

8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

9 Let the brother of low degree rejoice in that he is exalted:

10 But the rich, in that he is made low: because as the flower of the grass he shall pass away.

 

I am not rejoicing because I am far from exalted- but I am rejoicing because I know God teaches me wisdom.

And you will not persuade me that he does not.

[mfbukowski]

47 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Why have baptism? Because we have a model in the New Testament of baptism. The Saint is concerned about "authority." I believe Jesus Christ has all the authority that is needed. His death and resurrection proved He has authority over Satan and death itself. What more authority could we need or want?  I rest in his authority; I have no need or desire to share in it.  My concept of leadership is wrapped up in service; not in authority. I lose my leadership effectiveness when I rely on my authority. I carefully observe Mennonite elders and leaders and look for their spiritual leadership, the gifts of the spirit, and evidence of their maturity in Christ. I fortunately live among Mormons so I can look for the same thing in Mormon elders, bishops, presidents, and the like. I interact with them almost daily. I know this will drive you nuts, but I see pretty much the same in both: faithfulness and inconsistency. Those are probably the same things folks who watch me, see in me. Sorry. I sense no greater spirituality in a Mormon leader than in a Mennonite leader. I respect, honor, and admire both. I don't assume that the Mennonite is more spiritual than the Mormon or the other way around. I answered a message earlier about a post I read this afternoon where the Mormon writer on this forum just assumes that when a Mormon interacts with a non-Mormon,  the Mormon is more righteous, has higher standards, has deeper covenants, etc. 

So if God doesn't differentiate, why read the bible or go by it?  Who cares what the New Testament says, all churches are the same to God!

And what was wrong with John's baptism?  And you speak of inconsistency?

Acts 19

Quote

1And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 4Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. 7And all the men were about twelve.

Edited September 2, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Meerkat]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I don't think God thinks Mennonites are better. I simply do not believe that being Mormon is "better, " nor do I think God thinks Mormons are better.  My faith is not a contest with any other group. I am sorry if that makes no sense to you.  

You will find significant agreement with this statement among Mormons.  We are talking past each other again hurling preconceived notions of what each other believes. The word "better" may be a poor descriptor.  Mormons don't look at faith as a contest either.  Why do you assume that makes no sense to us?  

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

 

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

The Saint is concerned about "authority." I believe Jesus Christ has all the authority that is needed. His death and resurrection proved He has authority over Satan and death itself.

I agree.

What more authority could we need or want?  I rest in his authority; I have no need or desire to share in it.  

I dont want it as a means of making a statement of my humility and/or virtue, or as a matter of pride. I want to honor His wishes.  If it brings our Heavenly Father joy to share His authority with us unworthy creatures, why would I diminish His joy by telling the Savior I have no desire to share in his priesthood, after all He has done for me?

My concept of leadership is wrapped up in service; not in authority. I lose my leadership effectiveness when I rely on my authority.

You May not realize this, but you will find strong agreement for this among the Mormons.  Here is a scripture on priesthood that spells it out.  I hope you can hear what the Lord is saying here:

THE ONLY WAY GOD'S PRIESTHOOD MAY BE EXERCISED: From Doctrine and Covenants 121:

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
            42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—
            43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;
            44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.
            45 Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.
            46 The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.

 

Edited September 2, 2017 by Meerkat