Which of the Articles of Faith are Necessary to be a Christian?

[Meerkat]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 That stretches the definition of "Christian" a mite too far.

Present tense, you are probably right.  My point referred to our ultimate judgment, where every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ and we will be judged according to our works

6 hours ago, Meerkat said:

From a Salvation point of view, I believe there is a case to be made for that idea (that a Buddhist may eventually be considered Christian.).  

Considering the ambiguity in the Scriptures, can you exclude Buddhists from salvation through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ?

            32" For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors.
            33 And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed." Alma 34:32-33

"12 And Amulek hath spoken plainly concerning death, and being raised from this mortality to a state of immortality, and being brought before the bar of God, to be judged according to our works.
            13 Then if our hearts have been hardened, yea, if we have hardened our hearts against the word, insomuch that it has not been found in us, then will our state be awful, for then we shall be condemned.
            14 For our words will condemn us, yea, all our works will condemn us; we shall not be found spotless; and our thoughts will also condemn us; and in this awful state we shall not dare to look up to our God; and we would fain be glad if we could command the rocks and the mountains to fall upon us to hide us from his presence." Alma 12:12-14

So what is more important, faith in Jesus Christ during mortality, or Christ-like behavior (works)? Will we be judged according to what we do, or what we believe? 

Here is where the ambiguity comes in, when the Gospel is preached to the dead: 

"31 And the chosen messengers went forth to declare the acceptable day of the Lord and proclaim liberty to the captives who were bound, even unto all who would repent of their sins and receive the gospel.
            32 Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets.  (This appears to include athiests, Buddhists and even people who had been taught the Restored Gospel, but rejected the prophets during mortality.)
            33 These were taught faith in God, repentance from sin, vicarious baptism for the remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, (all Celestial Temple ordinances.)
            34 And all other principles of the gospel that were necessary for them to know in order to qualify themselves that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit."  D&C 138:31-34

It appears to me a Buddhist in mortality may choose to believe in Jesus Christ in the Spirit World, and be judged according to his works in mortality.  If they repented of bad deeds done in the flesh, and embraced the atonement of Jesus Christ in the spirit world, would they then be considered Christian? Or do you read these scripture references differently?  

Edited September 11, 2018 by Meerkat

[carbon dioxide]

On 9/2/2018 at 1:28 PM, Navidad said:

My question is this - which of the 13 Articles of Faith do you believe are necessary for someone to believe in order to be considered a Christian? My question is not which are necessary to believe to make someone a Latter-day Saint? Rather it is, which are necessary to allow someone to be named a Christian?

Perhaps all of them.  Would a Christian reject truth from God regardless of where that truth is written? 

[Meerkat]

On 9/4/2018 at 9:49 AM, Navidad said:

Can a non-Mormon believer in Christ ascend to the third level of the celestial kingdom where God the Father and Christ will dwell for eternity, absent the acceptance of the signs, passwords, sealings, baptism, endowments, etc. of the LDS Church, either in this life or in the spirit world? If your answer is no, then the LDS controls the eternal life of everyone, regardless of how you protest it doesn't

All believers in Christ must conform to God's requirements including faith, repentance, baptism, etc. performed by proper authority.  That message is being taught in the Spirit World where we all go after death, according to 1 Peter 3:18-20. Hence, through Temples that opportunity will be offered to 100 percent of God's children.  

On 9/4/2018 at 11:26 AM, Navidad said:

It is staggering to me that God would reveal special things to that one half of one percent and ignore the other 99.4% of those who call him Abba. 

Christ's church is built on the foundation of personal revelation from God.  The Savior said to the Apostle Peter:
            17 "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
            18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock (personal knowledge directly from Father in Heaven,) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matt. 16:17-18

Whether in mortality or the Spirit world, every child of God who is welcomed into Heaven must receive personal revelation that Jesus Christ is their Savior, they must accept all important ordinances performed by proper authority, and desire to follow Him.  100% of God's children will have the opportunity to accept or reject those ordinances.  

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Meerkat said:

.....................................

It appears to me a Buddhist in mortality may choose to believe in Jesus Christ in the Spirit World, and be judged according to his works in mortality.  If they repented of bad deeds done in the flesh, and embraced the atonement of Jesus Christ in the spirit world, would they then be considered Christian? Or do you read these scripture references differently?  

A Buddhist (or whatever other type of practice/belief) may indeed decide to be a "Christian" on the other side of the veil, but that dos not make him a Christian on this side of the veil.  St Paul says that they who have not the Law (of the Gospel) are a law unto themselves -- meaning that they are judged by the culture to which they adhere.  Let God be true.

[Navidad]

8 hours ago, Meerkat said:

All believers in Christ must conform to God's requirements including faith, repentance, baptism, etc. performed by proper authority.  That message is being taught in the Spirit World where we all go after death, according to 1 Peter 3:18-20. Hence, through Temples that opportunity will be offered to 100 percent of God's children.  

Christ's church is built on the foundation of personal revelation from God.  The Savior said to the Apostle Peter:
            17 "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
            18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock (personal knowledge directly from Father in Heaven,) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matt. 16:17-18

Whether in mortality or the Spirit world, every child of God who is welcomed into Heaven must receive personal revelation that Jesus Christ is their Savior, they must accept all important ordinances performed by proper authority, and desire to follow Him.  100% of God's children will have the opportunity to accept or reject those ordinances.  

I received this reply in my email this morning. I simply can't resist replying. I appreciate the candor in the reply; but lament the lack of specificity. Why not simply say "performed by proper "Latter-day Saint" authority?

I couldn't disagree more with your first statement. I couldn't agree more with your quote of Matthew, but it certainly has nothing to do with LDS ordinances.

In your third statement, why not just say - "they must accept all important Latter-day Saint ordinances performed by proper "LDS male priesthood" authority?" Why not just acknowledge that "100% of God's children will have the opportunity to 'accept or reject' those 'Latter-day Saint' ordinances?"  That would be so much more forthright and would beautifully describe Mormon exceptionalism - the great LDS blind spot - that which is so offensive to other Christians for over 130 years - the root cause, in my thinking for all that "innocent" persecution. All attempts at inter-faith collaboration die at the altar of your arrogant answer.

What kind of an omnipotent God would limit His revealed truth and the granting of his Son's authority to less than 1/2 of one percent of those who accept his son's atonement? I calculate that by calculating that around .65 of one percent of Christians are LDS. Less than 1/2 of them are male priesthood holders. That equals less than 1/2 of one percent of Christians have the truth revealed to them and represent "proper authority." That is an outrageous claim, but it is that of the LDS male priesthood. I appreciate your finally putting this to rest in very plain English. My quest for the truth about Mormon Exceptionalism is over.

[Jane_Doe]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I received this reply in my email this morning. I simply can't resist replying. 

For clarification on Meerkat's comment, he was talking about the ultimate stand point, not just the standpoint of when a person dies in this life (which I think is how you're taking it).  Does that make sense?

 

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

. Why not simply say "performed by proper "Latter-day Saint" authority?

Because that's is not what is meant.  Again, Meerkat's comment was talking about the ultimate picture.

Edited September 11, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

For clarification on Meerkat's comment, he was talking about the ultimate stand point, not just the standpoint of when a person dies in this life (which I think is how you're taking it).  Does that make sense?

 

Because that's is not what is meant.  Again, Meerkat's comment was talking about the ultimate picture.

Joseph Smith taught there was much, much more to learn about the endowment after death.  Iirc, Brigham Young taught we would be participating in additional ordinances post death.  These new teachings and these new ordinances are not Latter-day Saint, which is the authorized organization here in mortality.  In the Spiritual World, the ones overseeing the work would be the Church of the Firstborn imo (should be sleeping so not looking it up).

[Navidad]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Joseph Smith taught there was much, much more to learn about the endowment after death.  Iirc, Brigham Young taught we would be participating in additional ordinances post death.  These new teachings and these new ordinances are not Latter-day Saint, which is the authorized organization here in mortality.  In the Spiritual World, the ones overseeing the work would be the Church of the Firstborn imo (should be sleeping so not looking it up).

Now there is a twist! Down here, the Church of the Firstborn are my LeBaron friends????!!!! And my LDS friends send missionaries to them! Now, that is really confusing!

[Calm]

There was a reason they chose it, obviously.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Church_of_the_Firstborn

 

[pogi]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

What kind of an omnipotent God would limit His revealed truth and the granting of his Son's authority to less than 1/2 of one percent of those who accept his son's atonement? I calculate that by calculating that around .65 of one percent of Christians are LDS. Less than 1/2 of them are male priesthood holders. That equals less than 1/2 of one percent of Christians have the truth revealed to them and represent "proper authority." That is an outrageous claim, but it is that of the LDS male priesthood. I appreciate your finally putting this to rest in very plain English. My quest for the truth about Mormon Exceptionalism is over.

What is your hang-up exactly?  If you really want to talk about numbers, lets talk about numbers.  100% - that is the ratio of people that will have the truth revealed to them via proper priesthood authority.  Can the rest of Christianity with their vast numbers make such a claim?  Not even close!  How many billions have died without having his truth revealed to them?  How many more will continue to die with no hope in the next life to ever hear his word revealed to them by one holding authority?  What was that passage about the smallest of all the seeds?

Quote

The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field; and this is smaller than all other seeds; but when it is full grown, it is larger than the garden plants, and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches,” (Matt. 13:31; see also Mark 4:30;  Luke 13:19).

There is absolutely NO limiting of God's revealed truth in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.  It will be revealed to all by one holding authority.  

Quote

 

Now ye may suppose that this is foolishness in me; but behold I say unto you, that by small and simple things are great things brought to pass; and small means in many instances doth confound the wise.

And the Lord God doth work by means to bring about his great and eternal purposes; and by very small means the Lord doth confound the wise and bringeth about the salvation of many souls.

Alma 37:6-7

 

I believe in the Jesus of the Bible who fed thousands with only five loaves and two small fish.  That is the omnipotent God that I believe in.   

Why would any bible believing Christian question doubt God's ability to do great things with small numbers?  

 

Edited September 11, 2018 by pogi

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

In your third statement, why not just say - "they must accept all important Latter-day Saint ordinances performed by proper "LDS male priesthood" authority?" Why not just acknowledge that "100% of God's children will have the opportunity to 'accept or reject' those 'Latter-day Saint' ordinances?"  That would be so much more forthright and would beautifully describe Mormon exceptionalism - the great LDS blind spot - that which is so offensive to other Christians for over 130 years - the root cause, in my thinking for all that "innocent" persecution. All attempts at inter-faith collaboration die at the altar of [Mormon exceptionalism].

I think you are reaching the core of the truth about the persecution of the early LDS Church here, but there are other factors I have mentioned such as fear of the Church acting as an unwanted voting block - perhaps abolishing slavery in Missouri, etc. However, there is some truth to the claims of exceptionalism turning off local populations. Talk about the Saints having a divine inheritance to the land would turn off those who had come and worked hard to clear and tame the land, and build up towns. In other words the saints were not out to make local friends with this kind of talk, and their exceptionalism made them a separate people, and objects of derision by local people who saw the saints as being "high and mighty." I am of course speaking in generalities. I am not saying the Saints did not make local friends, but I think you are right that some of their attitudes and speech can be traced as an ultimate cause of their own persecution. If they had been more humble in their encounters with the frontier people, I don't think so much animosity would have been stirred up. I think this is what you are saying, is still in the Church and is a cause of friction with other Churches, and I have to agree to some extent.  If the Church presented our ordinance work by acknowledging that we do it because we simply want  "100% of God's children to have the opportunity to 'accept or reject'  'Latter-day Saint' ordinances," there probably would be less friction. That is the way I talk about our proxy work. I think you make a good suggestion for how we present our work.

I don't talk about having to accept the LDS priesthood to be saved or anything like that. I think the Church sometimes get the idea of Priesthood authority confused with abilities to find the truth. For instance Yeshua acknowledged that Jews were not wrong to do what pharisees said since they were in Moses' seat, but made it clear that what they said was not truth. Having authority does not automatically make what one says true. I think the Church has trouble with this, and if I were to say such in a priesthood meeting, I am sure I would encounter stares. However, I believe it plain to see that those in a position of authority have done damage to the Church by abusing that authority  and members of their congregations. While there is such potential in any Church, I think there is a danger in equating authority with truth, which I find to be more prevalent in the Church of Jesus Christ. To some extent I think that is another source of mistrust you are alluding to. I think you are right that the current state of the Church in this regard is an obstacle to inter-faith relations because it breeds a certain presumption which can be off-putting. However, I think an honest examination of history quickly shows that the presumed authority of the creeds themselves can be off-putting. Do you agree that if one does not accept the creeds that they are anathema? How presumptuous is that? Yet, it is the result of having a state Church backed by state laws. My point is that LDS are not alone in carrying certain presumptions about what is necessary to follow God. I hope for greater inter-faith dialogue with other Christian sects, but even restoration Churches such as the Seventh Day Adventists carry such presumptions that make such dialogue difficult at the official level. I appreciate your attempts to build such dialogue, but am just pointing out that LDS are not alone in having cultural obstacles to such dialogue. 

[Meerkat]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

What kind of an omnipotent God would limit His revealed truth and the granting of his Son's authority to less than 1/2 of one percent of those who accept his son's atonement?

I didn't mean to offend you or anyone else.  You are absolutely right.  What kind of omnipotent God would limit His revealed truth to a small number of His children?  The point of my comment was this:

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

That message is being taught in the Spirit World where we all go after death, according to 1 Peter 3:18-20. Hence, through Temples that opportunity will be offered to 100 percent of God's children.  

My Baptist friend across the street tells me the finest man I have ever known, my Dad, has gone to hell because he (my Dad) didn't believe he had been born again, as he heard others describe it.  Dad couldn't identify a spiritual experience.   He had tried, but couldn't identify one, or even an answered prayer.  What kind of omnipotent God sends a man to hell for not believing? Dad went to Church every week.  Remember the Centurian, "Lord, I believe.  Help Thou mine unbelief?" With Dad, it was only "Help Thou mine unbelief."   Dad had the works of a Christian, but not the gift of Faith. 

I have heard many Christians rely on John 3:16 as the definition of Salvation.  I agree with that, if they wouldn't tie God's hands and disallow the other scriptures that require baptism by one who was called as was Aaron, or scriptural evidence that Jesus taught people in the spirit world who were disobedient from the time of the flood.  If He taught them, then why not Dad.  Why not every Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Athiest, or any and every child of God who never heard or believed in Jesus Christ.

If you ask me, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reveals a merciful God who has opened the door to salvation wider than our other Christian friends.  The Restored Gospel seems reasonable to me, supported by scripture and a living prophet.  As you say, "What kind of omnipotent God would limit His revealed truth"  to only a small number of His children?  He doesn't, as I see it.  He leaves no stone unturned to give everyone the opportunity to inherit all that He has.  He has gone so far as giving them the opportunity to learn of Him even after death.

[Meerkat]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

the great LDS blind spot - that which is so offensive to other Christians for over 130 years - the root cause, in my thinking for all that "innocent" persecution. All attempts at inter-faith collaboration die at the altar of your arrogant answer.

So stating proper authority, revealed through the Prophet Joseph Smith is arrogant? Other churches do a tremendous amount of good teaching faith in Jesus Christ. They also do a tremendous amount of good relieving the suffering of humanity. Latter Day Saints lock arms with good people everywhere doing the Lord's work.  If you owned a company, would it be arrogant of me to attribute that ownership to you?

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

That is an outrageous claim, but it is that of the LDS male priesthood. I appreciate your finally putting this to rest in very plain English. My quest for the truth about Mormon Exceptionalism is over.

I've heard it put this way:  You are the head of your household. How would you feel if a stranger walked into your home, uninvited, and took it upon himself to discipline your children? The point is, it is your house.  You have the authority to act.  Not the stranger.

Some churches say sprinkling is the appropriate baptism.  Others, emersion.  Still others, infant baptism.  Others require an age of accountability.  Many say no baptism is required.  What is it? Who is right? What if authority matters?  And if so, is so stating an outrageous and arrogant act?

Some believe in Saturday Sabbath.  Others Sunday.  Some believe the Sabbath day is as unnecessary as baptism.  Who is right?  What if authority matters?

The Saviour told the Apostle Peter not to deny others "who followed not us" to cast out devils in the lord's name because "Noone who does a miracle in my name can lightly speak evil of me," or words to that effect.  That is why we work at interfaith collaboration, to further the work of Christ.  If it is us supporting you doing God's true work, or you supporting us, neither of us can speak evil of Him when we do a miracle in His name.  My point is that if you have faith in Jesus Christ, you can read the Book of Mormon and pray to know if it is true, and expect an answer.  Because if that book is true, then Joseph Smith was a prophet called of God to speak in His name, and authority to act in His name is on the earth.  That is the difference between ours and other religions.  And that takes nothing away from the other Christian churches who preach Christ and bless others.  Is that an arrogant thing to say? It wasn't intended to be. 

Edited September 11, 2018 by Meerkat

[Navidad]

48 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I think you are reaching the core of the truth about the persecution of the early LDS Church here, but there are other factors I have mentioned such as fear of the Church acting as an unwanted voting block - perhaps abolishing slavery in Missouri, etc. However, there is some truth to the claims of exceptionalism turning off local populations. Talk about the Saints having a divine inheritance to the land would turn off those who had come and worked hard to clear and tame the land, and build up towns. In other words the saints were not out to make local friends with this kind of talk, and their exceptionalism made them a separate people, and objects of derision by local people who saw the saints as being "high and mighty." I am of course speaking in generalities. I am not saying the Saints did not make local friends, but I think you are right that some of their attitudes and speech can be traced as an ultimate cause of their own persecution. If they had been more humble in their encounters with the frontier people, I don't think so much animosity would have been stirred up. I think this is what you are saying, is still in the Church and is a cause of friction with other Churches, and I have to agree to some extent.  If the Church presented our ordinance work by acknowledging that we do it because we simply want  "100% of God's children to have the opportunity to 'accept or reject'  'Latter-day Saint' ordinances," there probably would be less friction. That is the way I talk about our proxy work. I think you make a good suggestion for how we present our work.

I don't talk about having to accept the LDS priesthood to be saved or anything like that. I think the Church sometimes get the idea of Priesthood authority confused with abilities to find the truth. For instance Yeshua acknowledged that Jews were not wrong to do what pharisees said since they were in Moses' seat, but made it clear that what they said was not truth. Having authority does not automatically make what one says true. I think the Church has trouble with this, and if I were to say such in a priesthood meeting, I am sure I would encounter stares. However, I believe it plain to see that those in a position of authority have done damage to the Church by abusing that authority  and members of their congregations. While there is such potential in any Church, I think there is a danger in equating authority with truth, which I find to be more prevalent in the Church of Jesus Christ. To some extent I think that is another source of mistrust you are alluding to. I think you are right that the current state of the Church in this regard is an obstacle to inter-faith relations because it breeds a certain presumption which can be off-putting. However, I think an honest examination of history quickly shows that the presumed authority of the creeds themselves can be off-putting. Do you agree that if one does not accept the creeds that they are anathema? How presumptuous is that? Yet, it is the result of having a state Church backed by state laws. My point is that LDS are not alone in carrying certain presumptions about what is necessary to follow God. I hope for greater inter-faith dialogue with other Christian sects, but even restoration Churches such as the Seventh Day Adventists carry such presumptions that make such dialogue difficult at the official level. I appreciate your attempts to build such dialogue, but am just pointing out that LDS are not alone in having cultural obstacles to such dialogue. 

Thanks for your post. A couple of things in reply - As a historian of Mormonism I readily accept that there were economic, cultural, political, and what we might simply call "sociological" factors involved with the Saint's problems with locals. If you ever have trouble going to sleep at night, read my article in this summer's Journal of Mormon History about the 1912 exodus from Mexico. I acknowledge all of those factors as causative in the exodus. I also however mention arrogance, racial prejudice, paternalism, anti-Catholic attitudes, etc. as factors, I believe those latter characteristics are the root, the foundation of why Saints have had problems where they have lived and while they still have problems - I have simply lumped all that into my concept of Mormon Exceptionalism. Others have called it Mormon Absolutism. . . whatever. I guess it is the kind of thing that makes a Saint say to me in a post "What's wrong with you?" I am sure my wife can give you a long list; but it is that concept that if I don't agree with your interpretation or especially if I seem stubborn in it, there is something "wrong with me."

Rev, I don't want to mistakenly characterize what you have said in your post, but I think you have hit on something very important with the concept of confusing authority and truth. I would also simply add to that I believe there is also confusion between administrative authority and sacred authority. The Proclamation on the Family says I preside in my family - a kind of sacred or holy authority whether I am LDS, or not. So I do have authority, even not being LDS> Dallin Oaks in a 2014 General Conference, talked about those who are not priests having priesthood authority, giving examples. I found that very enlightening. It seems that some such authority is administrative and some is sacred. It is all a bit confusing to me, but I think making a distinction between the two is very important. Sunday I watched a newly 12 year old being honored in the Sacrament Meeting for being ordained to the priesthood, yet he isn't even a priest. I brought that up in Elder's Quorum. The consensus was they wanted to hold a whole meeting on the concept of priesthood authority and the priest. Very interesting. I digress.

Also, I will answer your question directly - no I do not think that if you ignore the creeds you are anathema, bad, lost, bound for Hell or anything negative. I also don't know anyone educated or trained in theology who would say that. Are there immature Baptists, Mennonites, and Mormons who say goofy things to people in their zeal to convert and to play the "my brand of Christianity is better than yours" game? Of course there are. In the same vein, I don't think if I fail to accept LDS ordinances, endowments, sealings, articles of faith, etc. in this world or the next, the result will be that I will not live with God for eternity - have eternal life. While I don't believe in eternal security in a Calvinist sense either, I do have confidence in my faith and commitment to Christ and that He has revealed through the Holy Spirit that I am the temple.  I don't go to the temple because I am the temple. Creeds have no authority; they are nothing more than reminders of what some groups believe. So, I believe that in the absence of creeds and LDS priesthood authority and ordinances, I will unless I commit certain unpardonables live in celestial glory with God forever enjoying Him, continuing to learn, and perhaps even becoming more like Him in the next world as I have in this world. I don't know anything about exaltation, but I do believe in sanctification, and no I don't believe that process necessarily ends at death as someone on this forum recently said that Baptists believe. HUH? I do believe the opportunity for salvation ends at death, but the hope of sanctification continues forever thereafter.

I am coming to see LDS priesthood authority as administrative in nature for those in and of the LDS faith. I just read there are 17 ordinances in the LDS faith. Wow! Some have eternal implications, some do not. I have watched a number of them being performed by LDS priests. I have also watched similar or the exact same ordinances being performed in a number of other faith traditions. I also have performed them myself. I have also seen ordinances that the LDS don't practice being performed. I really see, sense, feel, and believe there is no difference in those performed by an LDS priest, a Mennonite elder, or a Baptist pastor (just to cite a few).  Priesthood authority makes the ordinance legal in the LDS Church; I also believe God honors it. If I perform an ordinance in a Baptist church that makes it legal in the Baptist church, it also is honored by God, even if both the LDS or the Mennonite 8 year old have one eye on the cookies the whole time. The difference is in the administrative nature of the act for the individual church. I belong to one of the oldest restorational Christian groups. I believe we are a wonderful Godly group. I attend one of the newest restorational Christian groups. I believe we are a wonderful Godly group. I don't believe either is the "only." I believe both are "true and living." I am at peace with that. If I want to continue to fellowship in the ward, I will have to "stomach" (using a recent LDS author I read) some of them occasionally saying they are the "only." It is just so very offensive. I hope that perhaps the only thing I have been able to contribute to this forum in my own bumbling way is to help you realize that your "onliness" is the great divide. I have journals of Methodist preachers talking about how offensive the Mormon exceptionalism (my word, not his) was to him and his parishioners back in Illinois in 1842.  Some are now trying to bridge that divide, but I am saddened to say I think that work is doomed to failure. Your way is the only way for you. My way is not the only way for me, or in my mind, for anyone else. I will happily speak about God and of God. I will never presume to speak for God. That is over my pay grade. Again, I have consistently suggested two things for my Saint friends (I know you haven't asked for my opinion, so I am probably out of line here)  - 1. develop a more accurate understanding of Protestant teachings and Protestants as people  - not what the Protestant missionary in front of Temple Square says because they only represent themselves, and 2. think about the extremely offensive nature of your being the "only." If you really believe you are the "only" and I know that not all saints believe that; just maybe you could interpret that as "the only for you" but not for me, nor is it the only path that leads to God in this life or the next. You take an awful lot on yourself if you say my exact beliefs are the only path to an omnipotent God who doesn't need order because He is order. He is the creator of order. He decides what that is - we don't. Blessings, Phil

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Meerkat said:

So stating proper authority, revealed through the Prophet Joseph Smith is arrogant? Other churches do a tremendous amount of good teaching faith in Jesus Christ. They also do a tremendous amount of good relieving the suffering of humanity. Latter Day Saints lock arms with good people everywhere doing the Lord's work.  If you owned a company, would it be arrogant of me to attribute that ownership to you?

I've heard it put this way:  You are the head of your household. How would you feel if a stranger walked into your home, uninvited, and took it upon himself to discipline your children? The point is, it is your house.  You have the authority to act.  Not the stranger.

Some churches say sprinkling is the appropriate baptism.  Others, emersion.  Still others, infant baptism.  Others require an age of accountability.  Many say no baptism is required.  What is it? Who is right? What if authority matters?  And if so, is so stating an outrageous and arrogant act?

Some believe in Saturday Sabbath.  Others Sunday.  Some believe the Sabbath day is as unnecessary as baptism.  Who is right?  What if authority matters?

The Saviour told the Apostle Peter not to deny others "who followed not us" to cast out devils in the lord's name because "Noone who does a miracle in my name can lightly speak evil of me," or words to that effect.  That is why we work at interfaith collaboration, to further the work of Christ.  If it is us supporting you doing God's true work, or you supporting us, neither of us can speak evil of Him when we do a miracle in His name.  My point is that if you have faith in Jesus Christ, you can read the Book of Mormon and pray to know if it is true, and expect an answer.  Because if that book is true, then Joseph Smith was a prophet called of God to speak in His name, and authority to act in His name is on the earth.  That is the difference between ours and other religions.  And that takes nothing away from the other Christian churches who preach Christ and bless others.  Is that an arrogant thing to say? It wasn't intended to be. 

Meerkat: I haven't walked into your house and done anything. This forum is not your house, neither does it represent The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a forum for dialogue and discussion that I have watched on occasion turn into disagreement and dissension. This forum is also not a place for only faithful Mormons to discuss how the change of name is going, or only intra-LDS things. If I am wrong, please let me know.

I have been attending a Mormon ward faithfully three times a Sunday for almost a year. I have not and will not offend, scold, correct, chastise, discipline anyone there. That is their house; I went as an uninvited guest; I stay as a welcome brother and friend. I also attend other LDS gatherings and honor the gathering for its intent. MHA isn't about doctrine. Sure, sometimes we discuss things in twos and threes over a glass of ......errr.....errr... Dr Pepper. that is educational, nothing more.

As I read this message I think that God either smiles or cries (speaking anthropomorphically) at our worries about "Who is right about so many things?" I have served on the International Council of a major interdenominational mission board with missionaries from 14 countries and 60 denominations. We discussed all of the things you mention well into the night. I have served as the director of a Christian school with students from 60 churches and 20 denominations, including LDS kids. All of that has caused a deep belief in my heart and mind that God sent his Son into the world the save the world, not to condemn it and much of the rest of polity, ecclesiology, eschatological beliefs, etc.  matters not to Him. He already knows what is going to happen. He is a very big God, understanding that he didn't make robots in his image, but humans, who by the very nature he gave us will disagree and come to our own interpretations and conclusions about things. That is how he made us. He doesn't cringe at that.  If it isn't essential for salvation, it doesn't matter. I don't believe God cares about the form of baptism. I don't believe God cares if we worship on Saturday, Friday night, or Sunday - indoors or out. What authority matters? Hmmmmm......God's authority matters - by baptizing, or leading other ordinances in His name, we avail ourselves of His authority. No Baptist preacher, no Mormon priest, no Mennonite elder has authority in and of himself. That is why I dislike the presiding elder in an LDS Sacrament Meeting having to be served first. That is not exactly the model of servant leadership. If I ever become a bishop in a Mormon ward (fat chance!) I want to be served last, or have us all served and then partake together. We also don't have authority because we are Baptist, Mennonite, or Mormon. We have authority because we are Christians. It is at the name of Christ that every knee shall bow. It is not at the name of any Church, group, or denomination that knees should bow. You say if I read the Book of Mormon and pray to know if it is true I can expect an answer. I believe that because I have done that. I also know (not believe) that the nitty-gritty of LDS doctrine (the important stuff) is not in the Book of Mormon. It is in the Doctrine & Covenants and POGP and seemingly in General Conference talks. Our speakers speak more about General Conference talks than any of the four scriptures.  I have much less of an issue with the BOM than I do with the other two LDS scriptures. They are what hold me back, not what I think about BOM. I can't base my conversion to the LDS Church on the BOM. That would be ignoring the vast majority of current LDS beliefs that aren't contained in the BOM.  Thanks for giving me the chance to reply.

[Calm]

Quote

I do believe the opportunity for salvation ends at death, but the hope of sanctification continues forever thereafter.

Do you have a Baptist reference where sanctification continuing after life forever is explained?  I don't think I have heard it put quite that way before and I am interested in reading more on it...just nothing too deep right now, poor concentration these days.

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for your post. A couple of things in reply - As a historian of Mormonism I readily accept that there were economic, cultural, political, and what we might simply call "sociological" factors involved with the Saint's problems with locals. If you ever have trouble going to sleep at night, read my article in this summer's Journal of Mormon History about the 1912 exodus from Mexico. I acknowledge all of those factors as causative in the exodus. I also however mention arrogance, racial prejudice, paternalism, anti-Catholic attitudes, etc. as factors, I believe those latter characteristics are the root, the foundation of why Saints have had problems where they have lived and while they still have problems - I have simply lumped all that into my concept of Mormon Exceptionalism. Others have called it Mormon Absolutism. . . whatever. I guess it is the kind of thing that makes a Saint say to me in a post "What's wrong with you?" I am sure my wife can give you a long list; but it is that concept that if I don't agree with your interpretation or especially if I seem stubborn in it, there is something "wrong with me."

Well, I certainly don't think there is anything wrong with you if you don't agree with me. I don't think there is anyone out there who would fully agree with my scriptural interpretations. Nevertheless, I enjoy discussing my viewpoints on this forum, and learn from others. I like to think I am right, but acknowledge that my viewpoints have changed over the years. One issue I have with the Church is that it seems there is some interpretation of just about every scripture - leaving no room for disagreement or other viewpoints. It goes back to that authority thing, and who is viewed as having greater authority. The Church president is viewed as having the ultimate word on scriptural interpretation. This mindset is extended beyond the Church to all Christian sects which members encounter. I am not a particular fan of this mindset either as you have probably picked up by now. It's a type of absolutism which tends to drive me up the walls. I search for truth wherever that may lead me. It seems these two can come into conflict when truth as I see it doesn't agree with say LDS belief of the garden of Eden in Missouri for example. I know what you are saying because I get the same reaction of "what's wrong with you?" I feel that my continual search for truth sometimes makes me the black sheep. I wouldn't say I'm persecuted, but feeling like a black sheep is no fun either.

Quote

Rev, I don't want to mistakenly characterize what you have said in your post, but I think you have hit on something very important with the concept of confusing authority and truth. I would also simply add to that I believe there is also confusion between administrative authority and sacred authority. The Proclamation on the Family says I preside in my family - a kind of sacred or holy authority whether I am LDS, or not. So I do have authority, even not being LDS> Dallin Oaks in a 2014 General Conference, talked about those who are not priests having priesthood authority, giving examples. I found that very enlightening. It seems that some such authority is administrative and some is sacred. It is all a bit confusing to me, but I think making a distinction between the two is very important. Sunday I watched a newly 12 year old being honored in the Sacrament Meeting for being ordained to the priesthood, yet he isn't even a priest. I brought that up in Elder's Quorum. The consensus was they wanted to hold a whole meeting on the concept of priesthood authority and the priest. Very interesting. I digress.

Well, I think you are making a valid distinction. In terms of authority for example the quorum of apostles has equal authority to the quorum of the president. I think the most practical way of thinking about that is from a spiritual  point of view since only the President is acknowledged as having all the keys to run the Church. It is kind of like the division of power in our Federal government. The president can do very little without the agreement of the legislature, but to win over the hearts of the people is largely the president's job. I believe our Church functions with someone making a suggestion, and then the president and apostles coming to an agreement on it. If someone feels they have received a revelation, hopefully, they present it to all to get a vote of confirmation, and then it can become an official Church policy or doctrine. I view policies as more the administrative side of things about running the Church, and doctrine as being the spiritual guidance of the Church. So there are both types of authority involved in the leadership. Ultimately, the authority of the Church leadership is given by the Lord through the confirmation of the general membership although I don't know if the leadership thinks of it that way. Some seem to feel that call is the source of their authority. Yet, if the membership does not give the permission for them to lead, they will not have that authority. I further think that this leads to the further source of confusion about authority equaling truth. If the membership gives authority for one to receive revelations for the Church, it doesn't mean they will receive scripture or new doctrine from the Lord.  I think there is a certain presumption of such, but I believe there always remains the potential for individuals to go astray. Hence, the reason for the structure of the Church.  If only one was authorized to receive revelation for the Church, there really wouldn't be a need for apostles would there? And they wouldn't all be set apart as prophets, seers and revelators. 

Quote

Also, I will answer your question directly - no I do not think that if you ignore the creeds you are anathema, bad, lost, bound for Hell or anything negative. I also don't know anyone educated or trained in theology who would say that. Are there immature Baptists, Mennonites, and Mormons who say goofy things to people in their zeal to convert and to play the "my brand of Christianity is better than yours" game? Of course there are. In the same vein, I don't think if I fail to accept LDS ordinances, endowments, sealings, articles of faith, etc. in this world or the next, the result will be that I will not live with God for eternity - have eternal life. While I don't believe in eternal security in a Calvinist sense either, I do have confidence in my faith and commitment to Christ and that He has revealed through the Holy Spirit that I am the temple.  I don't go to the temple because I am the temple. Creeds have no authority; they are nothing more than reminders of what some groups believe. So, I believe that in the absence of creeds and LDS priesthood authority and ordinances, I will unless I commit certain unpardonables live in celestial glory with God forever enjoying Him, continuing to learn, and perhaps even becoming more like Him in the next world as I have in this world. I don't know anything about exaltation, but I do believe in sanctification, and no I don't believe that process necessarily ends at death as someone on this forum recently said that Baptists believe. HUH? I do believe the opportunity for salvation ends at death, but the hope of sanctification continues forever thereafter.

Well, my point about the creeds is that for instance the Nicene Creed itself made it anathema not to accept its major parts. Although Christians normally don't think that way anymore, I think the major Protestant schools think this way about those who do not accept the creeds - they aren't "Christian." The creeds have no external authority anymore because they were formed as part of the Roman State Church, and there is no Roman State anymore to enforce the creeds. However, this is how Christianity was spread through the Roman Empire. The creeds became the law of the Church. 

Here is my spiel about the priesthood. The priesthood does not grant one exclusive access to God. The Lord spoke to me as a child in the Baptist Church. Yet, I do not feel that as a believer I had the priesthood anymore than Jews held the Levitical priesthood or all were the High Priest. It just wasn't so, and no amount of belief made it so. When i received the office of Elder in the Melchizedek Priesthood, I felt a physical change or powerful sensation - like a rush into my body. It was a powerful experience.  I'm sorry to say that I just don't believe that all Christians hold the priesthood. Their belief in Christ, while admirable, just doesn't make it so. I cannot help that my belief may offend you. It is my strong testimony that the Lord restored his priesthood through Joseph Smith. You are certainly entitled to your beliefs, but I know from experience that beliefs can change. The followers of the Lord do make up His temple, but His house has many rooms, and I testify that we will each receive according to our abilities and discipleship. As I have grown in Christ, this truth has become plainly manifest to me.

So, why do we have the priesthood? One important reason is that it gives us the authority to speak for God. Thus, we can speak with some authority to those to whom our authority extends. This is why the apostles followed Yeshua - to learn from His authority. They were not effective on their own without learning of Him. It is a necessary cog in a complete covenantal relationship. In contrast you do not believe you can speak for God. If you do not believe anyone can speak for God, from whence do you think the 2 witnesses of Rev 11 will speak? Some things are the Lord's way or the highway. If you do not accept Him, you cannot be saved. It is His word through His apostles.

Quote

I am coming to see LDS priesthood authority as administrative in nature for those in and of the LDS faith. I just read there are 17 ordinances in the LDS faith. Wow! Some have eternal implications, some do not. I have watched a number of them being performed by LDS priests. I have also watched similar or the exact same ordinances being performed in a number of other faith traditions. I also have performed them myself. I have also seen ordinances that the LDS don't practice being performed. I really see, sense, feel, and believe there is no difference in those performed by an LDS priest, a Mennonite elder, or a Baptist pastor (just to cite a few).  Priesthood authority makes the ordinance legal in the LDS Church; I also believe God honors it. If I perform an ordinance in a Baptist church that makes it legal in the Baptist church, it also is honored by God, even if both the LDS or the Mennonite 8 year old have one eye on the cookies the whole time. The difference is in the administrative nature of the act for the individual church. I belong to one of the oldest restorational Christian groups. I believe we are a wonderful Godly group. I attend one of the newest restorational Christian groups. I believe we are a wonderful Godly group. I don't believe either is the "only." I believe both are "true and living." I am at peace with that. If I want to continue to fellowship in the ward, I will have to "stomach" (using a recent LDS author I read) some of them occasionally saying they are the "only." It is just so very offensive. I hope that perhaps the only thing I have been able to contribute to this forum in my own bumbling way is to help you realize that your "onliness" is the great divide. I have journals of Methodist preachers talking about how offensive the Mormon exceptionalism (my word, not his) was to him and his parishioners back in Illinois in 1842.  Some are now trying to bridge that divide, but I am saddened to say I think that work is doomed to failure. Your way is the only way for you. My way is not the only way for me, or in my mind, for anyone else. I will happily speak about God and of God. I will never presume to speak for God. That is over my pay grade. Again, I have consistently suggested two things for my Saint friends (I know you haven't asked for my opinion, so I am probably out of line here)  - 1. develop a more accurate understanding of Protestant teachings and Protestants as people  - not what the Protestant missionary in front of Temple Square says because they only represent themselves, and 2. think about the extremely offensive nature of your being the "only." If you really believe you are the "only" and I know that not all saints believe that; just maybe you could interpret that as "the only for you" but not for me, nor is it the only path that leads to God in this life or the next. You take an awful lot on yourself if you say my exact beliefs are the only path to an omnipotent God who doesn't need order because He is order. He is the creator of order. He decides what that is - we don't. Blessings, Phil

I do not presume to speak for God either on the point of salvation after death. Peter, Paul and Yeshua have spoken. Their word has been clarified and added to through Joseph Smith. Our Lord said that the time was coming when the dead would hear His voice and those that heard would live ie arise out of the graves. If he was not extending a chance to them for them to believe Him, why would He need to speak to them at all? This was further explained by Peter in 1 Peter 3 & 4 that our Savior went to spirit prison in spirit after his crucifixion to teach them the gospel . Teaching the gospel to spirits? Yes, that is what Peter says He did. That is exactly what we say He did that those "who could live godly" could have a chance to be resurrected with him. Why is that hard to accept? Why is something so imminently fair doubted about God? How else can God fairly judge people who died without hearing the gospel? He says He is a just God, and no respecter of persons. How is something so unjust as never hearing the gospel turned into something a just God would judge people on? I just never understood that, which was why 1 Peter 3 & 4 jumped out at me for what they teach. i also don't see why other Christians would be offended by that belief. I think it is beautiful, imminently fair and just. Hence, it is of God. Condemning others to hell without the gospel seems like what you are complaining about LDS doing with the living. Isn't it about the same?

Edited September 12, 2018 by RevTestament

[Meerkat]

5 hours ago, Meerkat said:

If it is us supporting you doing God's true work, or you supporting us, neither of us can speak evil of Him when we do a miracle in His name. 

I probably broke the rules, for which I apologize.

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

As I read this message I think that God either smiles or cries (speaking anthropomorphically) at our worries about "Who is right about so many things?" 

Clearly people on this board have different opinions about what constitutes authority, and why that is or is not important.  I enjoy most all points of view.  I was expressing my belief, not realizing I was making an arrogant or outrageous claim.  You mentioned Mormon exceptionalism-- our Blind Spot.  I will try to remember that I should just "take it," rather than defend why I believe as I do.  My defense comes across as proselytizing rather that discussing, which is against the rules.  May it suffice to say we have a difference of opinion on the subject of authority to perform sacred ordinances.  I still think you are a good guy.  I don't want to cause contention, which I sometimes do. My apologies.

On another topic, I enjoyed reading your bio.  You have done much to bless God's children in many countries and areas of interest.  Maybe you had something to do with the great Mennonite "Christian Light" curriculum we used in our home school.  If so, nice work!

Edited September 11, 2018 by Meerkat

[mfbukowski]

Never mind.

Edited September 12, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Never mind.

Hi amigo: In your now deleted post, you suggested “I see what I want to see.”  I don’t deny that at all. I think that kind of construct is wired into human nature.  That is why I find the model of the Johari Window so very helpful with its arena, unknown, blind spot, and  façade components. It was created back in 1955 and remains a wonderful design for understanding human nature.  

The best study of religion necessitates the engagement of theology, psychology, and sociology. That is why I so enjoyed teaching the integration of psychology and theology. The books that have best helped me understand religion as conflict, including Mormonism have not been those written by historians, but by sociologists, some of which are LDS, some are not.  The Mormon’s need to be “the other” and the perception of Mormons as “the other” are concurrent themes. In both, Mormon’s views of themselves and non-Mormon’s view of Mormons coincide.  Notice I didn’t say collide. They are similar in fascinating ways. 

All of us at times:

See things that we want to see

Don’t’ see things that are right in front of us

Really believe something, claim it is a prompting and win!

Keep things about ourselves hidden, hoping others don’t see them

Are needy. We focus on our status as less than, persecuted, neglected, ignored, brilliant, capable, incapable etc. to influence people and draw attention to ourselves. At times we fight to give up being needy, because being needy (persecuted) has become our identity.

Are remarkably transparent. We open up about ourselves sometimes to the joy and sometimes to the yawns of others

Claim some kind of revelation because it matches what we thought to begin with.

Deny some kind of revelation because it doesn’t match what we thought to begin with

Identify the out group – the one or ones who are to blame for whatever

I could go on, but that would create the yawns. Religion, psychology, and sociology are wonderfully intermixed. Arizona State has one division wherein students study history, religion, and philosophy. Courses, professors, etc. are shared. That is a wonderful model for understanding religion; so would be one that includes religion, psychology, and sociology.

You were right. Sometimes I see things that I want to see. I am more worried about my blind spots – things others see about me that I either don’t see or refuse to see. There is a lot of that in discussions about religion.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Hi amigo: In your now deleted post, you suggested “I see what I want to see.”  I don’t deny that at all. I think that kind of construct is wired into human nature.  That is why I find the model of the Johari Window so very helpful with its arena, unknown, blind spot, and  façade components. It was created back in 1955 and remains a wonderful design for understanding human nature.  

 

The best study of religion necessitates the engagement of theology, psychology, and sociology. That is why I so enjoyed teaching the integration of psychology and theology. The books that have best helped me understand religion as conflict, including Mormonism have not been those written by historians, but by sociologists, some of which are LDS, some are not.  The Mormon’s need to be “the other” and the perception of Mormons as “the other” are concurrent themes. In both, Mormon’s views of themselves and non-Mormon’s view of Mormons coincide.  Notice I didn’t say collide. They are similar in fascinating ways. 

 

All of us at times:

 

See things that we want to see

 

Don’t’ see things that are right in front of us

 

Really believe something, claim it is a prompting and win!

 

Keep things about ourselves hidden, hoping others don’t see them

 

Are needy. We focus on our status as less than, persecuted, neglected, ignored, brilliant, capable, incapable etc. to influence people and draw attention to ourselves. At times we fight to give up being needy, because being needy (persecuted) has become our identity.

 

Are remarkably transparent. We open up about ourselves sometimes to the joy and sometimes to the yawns of others

 

Claim some kind of revelation because it matches what we thought to begin with.

 

Deny some kind of revelation because it doesn’t match what we thought to begin with

 

Identify the out group – the one or ones who are to blame for whatever

 

I could go on, but that would create the yawns. Religion, psychology, and sociology are wonderfully intermixed. Arizona State has one division wherein students study history, religion, and philosophy. Courses, professors, etc. are shared. That is a wonderful model for understanding religion; so would be one that includes religion, psychology, and sociology.

 

You were right. Sometimes I see things that I want to see. I am more worried about my blind spots – things others see about me that I either don’t see or refuse to see. There is a lot of that in discussions about religion.

 

Great post  and to me very Mormon. Thanks.

I erased the original post because I thought you would find it uncharitable.

We are all, like our Human God, creating our worlds from matter unorganized.

As I have said before, when God is a glorified exalted Human, humanism becomes theology.

Edit:  And thinking about it, that is the core of Mormon Exceptionalism.

No one else sees the world that way, that we are gods in embryo.

Yes, I think that's it.

Edited September 12, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Meerkat]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

You were right. Sometimes I see things that I want to see. I am more worried about my blind spots – things others see about me that I either don’t see or refuse to see. There is a lot of that in discussions about religion.

Your comments are interesting.  One area that I don't see you addressing is that some things can be tested.

The spouse of a ward member, a Seventh Day Adventist, could see no reason to consider investigating the Restored Gospel because she felt to do so would be hypocritical.  She was a faithful member of her church.  She lived it's teachings, and could identify blessings that came from living the doctrines, which she saw as a sign from God that she was on the right path.  And in many ways she was.  Something happened (I don't recall what it was,) that caused her to consider the possibility that investigating the Church (regardless of it's unusual history,) may be a worthwhile exercise.  For her it was.

I have found several things that can be tested.  One is paying tithing.  God tells us in the Scriptures to "Prove me now herewith..."  Tithe payers will tell you they have proved the efficacy of tithing to their own satisfaction.  A doubter may give very logical reasons why paying tithing doesn't add up.  But it will have no influence on a faithful tithe payer who has other evidence that proves God is faithful and means what He says.

The same thing goes for Sabbath observance, and blessing the lives of the poor (see Isaiah 58 for the promise.)  Promises abound in the Scriptures that can be proven again and again.  Joseph Smith put this one to the test: "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.  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." James 1:5-6

Just like any of the promises, such as "Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land that the Lord, thy God, giveth thee," the promises have conditions.  Jesus said "Do the thing.  Know the doctrine."

From my point of view, there is more to it than psychology.  There are unseen things we can prove.  But when we endeavor to prove them, it is wise to "ask in faith, nothing wavering," in my opinion.  When you share the proof of your testing and people respond "that is an unprovable claim," be prepared to sigh, and say "You may be right." 😉

 

Edited September 12, 2018 by Meerkat

[Navidad]

29 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

Your comments are interesting.  One area that I don't see you addressing is that some things can be tested.

The spouse of a ward member, a Seventh Day Adventist, could see no reason to consider investigating the Restored Gospel because she felt to do so would be hypocritical.  She was a faithful member of her church.  She lived it's teachings, and could identify blessings that came from living the doctrines, which she saw as a sign from God that she was on the right path.  And in many ways she was.  Something happened (I don't recall what it was,) that caused her to consider the possibility that investigating the Church (regardless of it's unusual history,) may be a worthwhile exercise.  For her it was.

I have found several things that can be tested.  One is paying tithing.  God tells us in the Scriptures to "Prove me now herewith..."  Tithe payers will tell you they have proved the efficacy of tithing to their own satisfaction.  A doubter may give very logical reasons why paying tithing doesn't add up.  But it will have no influence on a faithful tithe payer who has other evidence that proves God is faithful and means what He says.

The same thing goes for Sabbath observance, and blessing the lives of the poor (see Isaiah 58 for the promise.)  Promises abound in the Scriptures that can be proven again and again.  Joseph Smith put this one to the test: "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.  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." James 1:5-6

Just like any of the promises, such as "Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land that the Lord, thy God, giveth thee," the promises have conditions.  Jesus said "Do the thing.  Know the doctrine."

From my point of view, there is more to it than psychology.  There are unseen things we can prove.  But when we endeavor to prove them, it is wise to "ask in faith, nothing wavering," in my opinion.  When you share the proof of your testing and people respond "that is an unprovable claim," be prepared to sigh, and say "You may be right." 😉

 

Thanks for your post. I wholeheartedly agree that things can and should be tested. Keeping the Sabbath and tithing, honoring the family, etc. the things you mention are in no way exclusive to Mormonism, neither is honoring a Word of Wisdom (acknowledging that different groups have different requirements in this regard) for example we don't dance or play cards. Mormons do both. I drank Dr. Pepper long before Mormons were allowed to.....and so on. We share many common principles of living a Godly Christian life. Certainly we (my wife and I) are blessed for having done so for many years. We are not untested in that regard. I certainly have investigated the Mormon Gospel (I wouldn't call it the Restored Gospel, because there are probably twenty groups who use that term). Mennonites were using it 300 years before Mormons. Sidney Rigdon was using it as a Campbellite. Mormons don't have exclusive rights to the concept of "The Church," "The Restored Gospel," "the gospel," the Sabbath," or high spiritual standards for living, or a focus on the family, or authority, or the priesthood, or ordinances, or 95% of the terms we all use in our spiritual life. In fact, I would humbly suggest (and I am proud of that😃) that the Mennonite standards for honoring God in our day-to-day life are just as high, if not a teeny bit higher than those found in a Mormon ward or family. I certainly don't rely on psychology or sociology for the basis or foundation of my faith. Those are disciplines that help me understand how we as humans, either individually or in groups are so much alike and so different. Why do three people look at the exact same phenomenon and come up with three different understandings of it, three different reasons for it, and three different explanations for how it happened. I wonder for every person who reads the BOM and prays about it and accepts conversion, how many there are who do the same thing and don't? I don't have an answer; I just wonder about that, because it seems to be assumed that if someone reads and prays in faith, the answer from the Holy Spirit will be in the affirmative. I don't guess missionaries keep data on that? Take care, Phil

[mfbukowski]

15 minutes ago, Navidad said:

. In fact, I would humbly suggest (and I am proud of that😃) that the Mennonite standards for honoring God in our day-to-day life are just as high, if not a teeny bit higher than those found in a Mormon ward or family.

AHA!

Mennonite exceptionalism !

BUSTED! 

 

[theplains]

On 9/9/2018 at 3:25 PM, CV75 said:

Everyone sees God’s creations (at least everyone becomes alive) in some sense; are you saying that physical stimulus constitutes knowledge of Him, that this stimulus constitutes “hearing the word” (Romans 10), and that God will judge His children based their obtaining that physical stimulus? Is this what you mean by God judging those not having the scriptures based on the knowledge they had of Him?

Many atheists see God's creation but they still don't want to believe.  Many will die without ever having the scriptures, so
I believe God will have His way to decide how to judge these people.  That's hard to speculate on.