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

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I would find all if those areas strengths and never expect them to be criticisms.

The A of F were not " decided upon."

As I said before they came from a letter to an editor which was requested and they were written by Joseph as a quick summary of some important points of our faith. They were never decided upon they were just a letter to an editor.

And then they were canonized.

And frankly in my opinion they were designed to make us look a lot more Protestant that we are. I see them almost as an advertisement to join the church written for Protestants.

No criticism but you really do not think like a Mormon yet.  

Complex and ever-evolving is a good thing. Continual renewal is why God gave us Prophets.

We relish new revelation and new communications from God. We really are polytheistic. We really do believe in Heavenly Mother and really do think we can become like Our Parents through the Priesthood no one else has, and temple covenants.

Note that none of that at all is in the Articles of faith.

Don't get stuck on the articles of Faith because what you're looking for is not there. They are about as simple as one can get and leave out most of everything anyway. They are the opposite of " complex and ever evolving."

Hi, I am stuck in the onerous task of creating an index for a new book. There is nothing harder than doing an index for a book, except maybe understanding LDS theology! 😃 Well, I must give you credit (I think) you are the first real live Mormon who has ever told me that Mormons are polytheistic. Big G; little g; not really gods, but angels or judges - I have heard it all. But no one has ever come right out and said "we are polytheistic!" 😵 I like you because you usually come right out and say the things that others won't, can't, or feel they shouldn't say!

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hi Amigo- I never thought of the articles of faith as a LDS creed. You are right, since I am not creedal, it would be odd for me to force a creed on you all. I certainly don't do that. I simply don't have a real clear perspective on the chronology of the development of and changes in LDS beliefs. I thought it odd  that those four things were not mentioned. I did not realize the articles of faith were decided on so early in the church's life that they would exclude, or never have been changed to include these four very important tenets of LDS faith. I have a great respect for the depth and intricacy of the LDS faith. It is complex and ever-evolving. That isn't a criticism; it is merely an observation. The LDS faith is uniquely permissive and restrictive, at the same time; methinks that is a function of the concept of a faith that is still evolving, changing, and in sometime ways engaged in a continual restoration of itself. Again, not a criticism; just an observation.

Hey Navidad. Yes, the Church "theology" if you will has changed, and will continue to change more I believe, because God is not done revealing his "secrets" to man. I think Brigham Young represented a definite change in Church "theology" if you will. I believe under BY the Church theology of theosis departed from the teachings of Joseph Smith and became a process involving polygamy. I don't see polygamy as being necessary at all, and I think the church has retreated to that position as well. Nevertheless, it remains a prominent example of what you are talking about. 

37 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hi, I am stuck in the onerous task of creating an index for a new book. There is nothing harder than doing an index for a book, except maybe understanding LDS theology! 😃 Well, I must give you credit (I think) you are the first real live Mormon who has ever told me that Mormons are polytheistic. Big G; little g; not really gods, but angels or judges - I have heard it all. But no one has ever come right out and said "we are polytheistic!" 😵 I like you because you usually come right out and say the things that others won't, can't, or feel they shouldn't say!

I don't see myself as being polytheistic, because I do believe in one leader. I believe Yeshua has led us exactly as He has seen the Father do, and thus will become the Father completely and absolutely. They are already one Elohim. They lead as one. I would say that is more in line with henotheism than polytheism. In polytheism you have a different god for different purposes, and usually different powers. It is nothing like the LDS viewpoint, and definitely paints the wrong picture. The Godhead is one in purpose. Further, ultimately all power is derived from the Father. If the Son were to depart from the precepts of the Father, He would no longer be the Son, but would fall. He is not some independent god in the usual meaning of that word. He derives power from the Father, because He has done the will of the Father in all things. The Father is El Elyon, the Most High Power. The Son is El Shaddai, who weans us from the breast to be more like Him - to learn to follow in His footsteps. No one is running off to become their own god unto themselves, because there is none other as we learn from Isaiah. Nor will any new El be formed. 

I'm not sure if there is really one word to accurately describe this belief. Is theostic a word? Unfortunately theosim has been hijacked to describe followers of one, Theo. As I have explained, I do not subscribe to the the Trinitarian Doctrine about the nature of God, so I am left for the need of a new word to describe my beliefs - I will posit Theostic for this purpose. However, I don't think all LDS currently share this belief to the same extent, so there you have it.  

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Hey Navidad. Yes, the Church "theology" if you will has changed, and will continue to change more I believe, because God is not done revealing his "secrets" to man. I think Brigham Young represented a definite change in Church "theology" if you will. I believe under BY the Church theology of theosis departed from the teachings of Joseph Smith and became a process involving polygamy. I don't see polygamy as being necessary at all, and I think the church has retreated to that position as well. Nevertheless, it remains a prominent example of what you are talking about. 

I don't see myself as being polytheistic, because I do believe in one leader. I believe Yeshua has led us exactly as He has seen the Father do, and thus will become the Father completely and absolutely. They are already one Elohim. They lead as one. I would say that is more in line with henotheism than polytheism. In polytheism you have a different god for different purposes, and usually different powers. It is nothing like the LDS viewpoint, and definitely paints the wrong picture. The Godhead is one in purpose. Further, ultimately all power is derived from the Father. If the Son were to depart from the precepts of the Father, He would no longer be the Son, but would fall. He is not some independent god in the usual meaning of that word. He derives power from the Father, because He has done the will of the Father in all things. The Father is El Elyon, the Most High Power. The Son is El Shaddai, who weans us from the breast to be more like Him - to learn to follow in His footsteps. No one is running off to become their own god unto themselves, because there is none other as we learn from Isaiah. Nor will any new El be formed. 

I'm not sure if there is really one word to accurately describe this belief. Is theostic a word? Unfortunately theosim has been hijacked to describe followers of one, Theo. As I have explained, I do not subscribe to the the Trinitarian Doctrine about the nature of God, so I am left for the need of a new word to describe my beliefs - I will posit Theostic for this purpose. However, I don't think all LDS currently share this belief to the same extent, so there you have it.  

Yes for the record, I totally agree

It becomes a question of semantics. As usual.

I am going just by the strict meaning of the word poly meaning many Theo meaning God.

Three persons makeup the godhead and each one of them is a God. There are also other exalted beings that can be termed gods, with or without a capital G.

So yes as it says in the scriptures there are Gods many but one only with whom we have to do.

As always language doesn't capture reality.

[RevTestament]

42 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes for the record, I totally agree

It becomes a question of semantics. As usual.

I am going just by the strict meaning of the word poly meaning many Theo meaning God.

Three persons makeup the godhead and each one of them is a God. There are also other exalted beings that can be termed gods, with or without a capital G.

So yes as it says in the scriptures there are Gods many but one only with whom we have to do.

As always language doesn't capture reality.

Hey, someone on the record totally agrees with me! Yay!! Well, that makes at least 2 of us. We need to get together and start the new LDS church.... Ha. Yeah, I understand completely where you are coming from, but I feel it is essential to point out the traditional view of polytheism, which LDS do not share in the least. I don't really like the English word god anymore either. It comes from a pagan Germanic background and is steeped in Greek traditions and pagan mythology ideas. I think of God as El or the power. Then the words of Isaiah make sense. When Yeshua becomes the Father He will not be a new power. He will just be sharing the existing power of the Father. It's a complete oneness kind of thing in my view. Rather than being a new "God," God is just adding to Himself. His house just becomes a little bit bigger, but it is not a new house. That's the way I look at it. They are not separate El/powers or houses. When we use words that way we are falling into the polytheism paradigm as I see it. We pray to the Father in the name of Jesus Christ for a reason. The Father is the ultimate El/power from which all priesthood power derives. Everyone invited into that house can be elohim with Him. They become His close family - sons and daughters. He sometimes shares that power.. a little...   

But if they try to do their own thing. they get the boot. So it definitely is different from polytheism in that regard - that's really what I wanted to point out. Separate spirits who become one in spirit or purpose - to bring to pass the eternal life and immortality of man. So, yes I do believe in separate spirits in the Godhead, but they really aren't separate powers. Satan fell trying to be a separate power... Cheers, friend.

Edited September 19, 2018 by RevTestament

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Hey, someone on the record totally agrees with me! Yay!! Well, that makes at least 2 of us. We need to get together and start the new LDS church.... Ha. Yeah, I understand completely where you are coming from, but I feel it is essential to point out the traditional view of polytheism, which LDS do not share in the least. I don't really like the English word god anymore either. It comes from a pagan Germanic background and is steeped in Greek traditions and pagan mythology ideas. I think of God as El or the power. Then the words of Isaiah make sense. When Yeshua becomes the Father He will not be a new power. He will just be sharing the existing power of the Father. It's a complete oneness kind of thing in my view. Rather than being a new "God," God is just adding to Himself. His house just becomes a little bit bigger, but it is not a new house. That's the way I look at it. They are not separate El/powers or houses. When we use words that way we are falling into the polytheism paradigm as I see it. We pray to the Father in the name of Jesus Christ for a reason. The Father is the ultimate El/power from which all priesthood power derives. Everyone invited into that house can be elohim with Him. They become His close family - sons and daughters. He sometimes shares that power.. a little...   

But if they try to do their own thing. they get the boot. So it definitely is different from polytheism in that regard - that's really what I wanted to point out. Separate spirits who become one in spirit or purpose - to bring to pass the eternal life and immortality of man. So, yes I do believe in separate spirits in the Godhead, but they really aren't separate powers. Satan fell trying to be a separate power... Cheers, friend.

Oh yeah- agreed.

If you are part of the family of El and are not part of the program you have broken the unity that IS what makes the Godhead- so it becomes a voluntary split.  And this is exactly what Lucifer did of course.  He had his own plan

And there have been others and will continue to be!

We need a new name that communicates that we are THE church of Christ and that the alleged "Christians" are not. 

Now I know that will not please many hereabouts on both sides of the issue but after so many years of trying to be in the "IN" group maybe it's time to become "Yeshua-ites" or something.    Now I understand better when you speak of El and Yeshua and the significance of those names.   I like that!!

When I first joined the church I got excited about the name "Mormon" saying that but it has not worked to do that.

Maybe just "THE Church of Jesus Christ" would do it. Or more bold- "The ONLY Church of Jesus Christ".

Oh yeah- that would really stir up some..................... thing. 

Probably bad PR.

But at some point.....   You have to let folks know that you are no longer interested in sitting at what they define as the "cool kids" table at lunch   

It is they who are excluding us- not the other way around.

 

Edited September 20, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Jane_Doe]

11 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hi, I am stuck in the onerous task of creating an index for a new book. There is nothing harder than doing an index for a book, except maybe understanding LDS theology! 😃 Well, I must give you credit (I think) you are the first real live Mormon who has ever told me that Mormons are polytheistic. Big G; little g; not really gods, but angels or judges - I have heard it all. But no one has ever come right out and said "we are polytheistic!" 😵 I like you because you usually come right out and say the things that others won't, can't, or feel they shouldn't say!

That's because >95% of LDS totally disagree with the statement "I'm a polytheist", just like Trinitarians do.  Believing in multiple persons in ONE God doesn't remotely make a person a polytheists the way Ancient Greeks were (for just one example).  Human languages just really fail at capturing the idea of multiple persons in ONE God. 

Edited September 20, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

That's because >95% of LDS totally disagree with the statement "I'm a polytheist", just like Trinitarians do.  Believing in multiple persons in ONE God doesn't remotely make a person a polytheists the way Ancient Greeks were (for just one example).  Human languages just really fail at capturing the idea of multiple persons in ONE God. 

Yeah but.... 

Do exalted humans then become part of the ONE God?

I can think of pros and cons for that.

Remember the phrase "for that is how Father gained his knowledge"

Was Father's Father part of the same ONE God?

I get it - it is all semantics really- but just wondering how you would answer that.

I tend to see it all as a Family.  Are we part of the family of our ancestors in ONE family?  

Of course we are....     

We simultaneously have our own families while still being part of "OUR FAMILY" with cousins second removed and uncles etc...

Another reason I love Mormonism- or whatever we call it now- ambiguity.   There are so many ways to see everything here.  

 

[RevTestament]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh yeah- agreed.

If you are part of the family of El and are not part of the program you have broken the unity that IS what makes the Godhead- so it becomes a voluntary split.  And this is exactly what Lucifer did of course.  He had his own plan

And there have been others and will continue to be!

We need a new name that communicates that we are THE church of Christ and that the alleged "Christians" are not. 

Now I know that will not please many hereabouts on both sides of the issue but after so many years of trying to be in the "IN" group maybe it's time to become "Yeshua-ites" or something.    Now I understand better when you speak of El and Yeshua and the significance of those names.   I like that!!

I agree the Church needs a new nick name. If someone called me a Yeshuaite, I would be OK with that - I'm not crazy about it right now, but it might grow on me. I like it better than Mormon. I like LDS Christian - maybe just because I have been using it for about 20 years. Perhaps we could revert to what the first Christians used - they called themselves The Way.That incorporates a lot of meaning in a short, easy phrase. 

I am glad that I am starting to get across the distinction in the names and titles. I think it really is important to help understand the nature of God. That is one of my issues now with the KJV - I think it hides the true nature of God/El. This misunderstanding is the source of much controversy, contention and even anger. I think it is merely a result of misunderstanding the titles of God through the translation process. I think when YHWH referred to Himself as Eloah, he wasn't envisioning just being known as God. He was referring to Himself as the the firm or immovable power - like a rock. 

Quote

When I first joined the church I got excited about the name "Mormon" saying that but it has not worked to do that.

Maybe just "THE Church of Jesus Christ" would do it. Or more bold- "The ONLY Church of Jesus Christ".

Oh yeah- that would really stir up some..................... thing. 

Probably bad PR.

But at some point.....   You have to let folks know that you are no longer interested in sitting at what they define as the "cool kids" table at lunch   

It is they who are excluding us- not the other way around.

Yeah, I think the only Church of Jesus Christ would definitely stir up bad PR....

I think the Church is beginning to reach a point in the United States and Brazil at least that we might be able to channel a new direction in our standing and PR. We could also use a new identifier in new areas such as China. I don't mind Latter Day Saints, but calling oneself a saint seems a little presumptuous although I use LDS all the time.  

So that's a few to consider:

The Way

Yeshuaites/Yeshuan

LDS Christians

I think other Christians may resist calling us The Way - that implies they are not on the right path. I don't think Yeshuaites will stick, but I am not against trying. It is certainly unique. 

Edited September 20, 2018 by RevTestament

[Meerkat]

9 hours ago, RevTestament said:

But if they try to do their own thing. they get the boot. So it definitely is different from polytheism in that regard - that's really what I wanted to point out. Separate spirits who become one in spirit or purpose - to bring to pass the eternal life and immortality of man. So, yes I do believe in separate spirits in the Godhead, but they really aren't separate powers. Satan fell trying to be a separate power... Cheers, friend.

I've been reading Givens' thought provoking book " Wrestling With The Angel."  He delves into some of the creeds, philosophies, movements and Church leaders and how the Church's view of God was influenced and has evolved (maybe even is evolving.)  I never did like being hemmed in by the Nicene Creed, or other creeds and confessions I couldn't understand.  The idea that a council of imperfect men pulled it together, gave it their stamp of approval and made it the definition of the one true God, and that not understanding or believing it could result in damnation never did set well with me.  

For a people who are often criticized for thinking we have all the answers, there is so much I don't know about God, the future and how it all fits together.  But I am grateful for what I do know and to have the freedom to think about it, and study creeds, philosophies and the ideas of interesting people like yourself.   I don't worry about the illogical idea I will be condemned for wondering about the Godhead, or thinking about any aspect of existence.  When the time is right, I believe I will know as I am known.  

I will tell you what I do know for sure: Jesus Christ knows me personally, and has communicated with me personally.  I believe it was the Holy Ghost that acted upon my heart and gave me this knowledge.

I know that the Book of Mormon is a true book because God has revealed it to me personally and unmistakably.  I have no doubt.  That communication also came in an action upon my heart that I believe was the Holy Ghost responding to a prayer of mine.

There are some other things I believe that have to do with my marriage, authority in the church, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, modern day prophets and Temple covenants.  I also believe signs will follow them that believe.   It happens to my wife and me regularly.

Beyond that, I don't know much.  But I believe those things will get me where I want to go.  They have and will continue to impact my behavior to help me become more holy, more grateful, more virtuous and more servicable to the God I worship and people I meet or associate with every day.

The nature of God, and what I will someday become is currently a hope that I have.  It is explained perfectly in 1 John 1:1-3, which states:

"Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
            2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
            3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure."

That is an explanation of my hope which is in Jesus Christ.  I gladly and humbly wait and study, and pray to know what us beyond that.  All I know is that the more I add to personal virtue, the more I feel God's Divine approval. I also feel the freedom and encouragement from Him to think and experiment on some if these ideas and hold fast to that which I can perceive is good.  And that's enough for me.

Edited September 20, 2018 by Meerkat

[Calm]

 

38 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I think other Christians may resist calling us The Way - that implies they are not on the right path. I don't think Yeshuaites will stick, but I am not against trying. It is certainly unique. 

Might be confusing:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Way_International

[Navidad]

A couple of days ago, someone in this thread said (I'm a poet) - " We MUST have certainty or Mormonism is worthless and just another denomination."  I think this comment encapsulates Mormon Exceptionalism perfectly. It carries within it several very important points:

1. Not only are Mormons certain, they MUST have certainty. Capitalizing MUST speaks volumes. Mormons are the only Christian group I know who MUST be right, or they risk being wrong, which is a terrible thing. Mormons have certainty - therefore they are right - therefore they are exceptional - therefore they are better, wiser, more astute, etc. and from there it is just a slight slippery slope to "the other." Gauss has been implying this in his sociology of Mormonism for years.

2. Whatever isn't certain is worthless. If Mormonism isn't the "only" then it is worthless. I think this is the cardinal doctrine of Mormonism. The idea that Mormonism is one branch on the Christian tree is unthinkable; regardless of the fact that it produces wonderful fruit. And because of continual revelation (which we all believe in ) as defined specifically by Mormonism, a Mormon can always say "God told us." Therefore it is true. A Mormon leader develops a belief in something; then he has a revelation about it; then he shares the prompting or revelation he has had (no more dramatic first visions) just promptings or the like and the Church holds a council twice a year where imperfect people get together under the leadership of the boss and everyone (99.99999999) votes to affirm, and that which the leader developed a belief in becomes canonical. Sounds like an early church council to me, sans the position papers, the discussions and debate, and days of collaborative decision-making like the early church had;

3. If Mormonism isn't certain, it isn't the only; therefore it is worthless; therefore it is just another denomination (equally worthless, by the way). All other branches on the Christian tree produce defective fruit, not fit for consumption. I can think of no better model (paradigm) for Mormon exceptionalism as is provided in that one statement.

Let me offer an alternative - I know it won't fly here, but it is my sincerely held point of view -

1. No Christian group has certainty about it all!   This is because God's revelation to us is limited. He simply hasn't chosen to tell us everything. As humans we see in a glass darkly. Even if he revealed new stuff to us every day, it would take years to understand life and the relationship between finite humans and an infinite God.

2. Being uncertain means our various understandings are limited; not worthless. Some of us spent years going to schools to study the choices, the options, the differences, etc. and still don't have certainty. I sure don't. That is part of what makes Christianity living, exciting, and humbling. There is so much we cannot know with certitude. That is why we will continue to grow in the heavenly kingdom(s). We will grow in knowledge and it will take eternity to understand it all, even in the presence of God. So I don't feel bad if I don't have certitude in this human existence. My attempts to understand and my uncertainty in my understanding don't make my work worthless.

3. I would prefer to eliminate the word "just" from the end of the statement. That is such a dismissive word. It dismisses all the good work done by so many good people to try and understand. Certainly they come to different conclusions about different things, but that is ok. We as humans, even Christian humans are not yet complete. We won't be for at lest the first 500,000 years of eternity. Sanctification is not just for this world.

4. I do believe that Mormonism is another denomination. It is a good denomination. It is a vital and alive denomination. It is a restorationist denomination that came out of early 19th century America along with the Church of Christ, the Disciples of Christ, the Seventh Day Adventists, etc. It arose out of its milieu and is a vibrant and alive faith. It has its peculiarities and idiosyncrasies, as do all. There can be no uncertainty about that. My branch of the tree also produces great fruit. It also produces some fruit with worms, holes, and other imperfections in it. Here in Chihuahua we pick our pears before they are ripe and then put them aside for a while to ripen. That may be a good metaphor (I am not sure) for the Christian life. We are all ripening. That process will continue into eternity. Christianity is what is exceptional; all its branches, including your faith and mine are striving to literally to become that exceptionality. None of us are there yet.

[Meerkat]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

If Mormonism isn't certain, it isn't the only; therefore it is worthless; therefore it is just another denomination (equally worthless, by the way). All other branches on the Christian tree produce defective fruit, not fit for consumption. I can think of no better model (paradigm) for Mormon exceptionalism as is provided in that one statement.

Let me offer an alternative - I know it won't fly here, but it is my sincerely held point of view -

1. No Christian group has certainty about it all!   This is because God's revelation to us is limited. He simply hasn't chosen to tell us everything. As humans we see in a glass darkly. Even if he revealed new stuff to us every day, it would take years to understand life and the relationship between finite humans and an infinite God.

2. Being uncertain means our various understandings are limited; not worthless. Some of us spent years going to schools to study the choices, the options, the differences, etc. and still don't have certainty. I sure don't. That is part of what makes Christianity living, exciting, and humbling. There is so much we cannot know with certitude. That is why we will continue to grow in the heavenly kingdom(s). We will grow in knowledge and it will take eternity to understand it all, even in the presence of God. So I don't feel bad if I don't have certitude in this human existence. My attempts to understand and my uncertainty in my understanding don't make my work worthless.

3. I would prefer to eliminate the word "just" from the end of the statement. That is such a dismissive word. It dismisses all the good work done by so many good people to try and understand. Certainly they come to different conclusions about different things, but that is ok. We as humans, even Christian humans are not yet complete. We won't be for at lest the first 500,000 years of eternity. Sanctification is not just for this world.

4. I do believe that Mormonism is another denomination. It is a good denomination. It is a vital and alive denomination. It is a restorationist denomination that came out of early 19th century America along with the Church of Christ, the Disciples of Christ, the Seventh Day Adventists, etc. It arose out of its milieu and is a vibrant and alive faith. It has its peculiarities and idiosyncrasies, as do all. There can be no uncertainty about that. My branch of the tree also produces great fruit. It also produces some fruit with worms, holes, and other imperfections in it. Here in Chihuahua we pick our pears before they are ripe and then put them aside for a while to ripen. That may be a good metaphor (I am not sure) for the Christian life. We are all ripening. That process will continue into eternity. Christianity is what is exceptional; all its branches, including your faith and mine are striving to literally to become that exceptionality. None of us are there yet.

I disagree with the bolded statement, and believe many or most members would disagree because it implies a prideful condescention on all other religions and what God has called them to do.  It also implies a "Holier than Thou" certitude that sets up the kind of exclusive club mentality you repeatedly describe.

I find much to agree with in your alternative.  God hasn't revealed everything.  We all look through a glass darkly.  I believe God has revealed some unique things to each or many churches that, if embraced, we would be better Christians for it.  The statement "We MUST have certainty or Mormonism is worthless and just another denomination" is flawed.

You will agree there are some things we can be certain of.  We can be certain that Jesus Christ was born.  We can be certain that he taught the importance of virtuous living.  We can be certain that He came to save a fallen world.  We can be certain, on an individual basis, that He came to save us from our sins because He revealed Himself to us personally in that act by the Holy Ghost.  We can be certain that our lives have changed and we look at the world through new eyes.

There is more we can be certain of, more knowledge God can reveal to each of us throughout our lives.  Do we know it all? Absolutely not. 

The problem I have with your writing is that you are the one who appears exclusive and condescending, to me. You cannot allow that anyone has certainty about a particular thing unless you have certainty about it.  And yet, you are certain about a fantastic story of God walking the earth as a man, being tortured and killed to pay for the sins of the world on condition of repentance, and taking up His body again in a glorified and perfected state that will live forever.  You are probably certain, because you know your sins are forgiven, that you will also rise in a glorified state to live forever because Jesus said it, and He has done it.  

I am certain about Joseph Smith because God revealed to me the Book of Mormon is true and another testament of Jesus Christ and that Joseph translated it.  Would I rather have remained a Lutheran?  Yes I would have.  Joining this church hurt my relationship with my parents and other relatives and impacted our fellowship for the rest of their lives.  I have had many Christian friends over the years try to talk me out of it, explain why Joseph Smith was a false prophet, and why the Book of Mormon was plagiarized from other sources.  It has not been as easy as it could have been in another "mainstream" Christian faith.  The thing that has carried me through it is the certainty of the revelation I have received from God.  Fantastic as it is, it is no more fantastic than the positive revelation God gave me that Jesus Christ is my Savior.  Hard as you try, you can't take that away from me.  It is mine.  It is certain, and it is a gift God gave unworthy me because I put in the simple effort He asked of me.  I read.  I prayed, nothing doubting, and God answered.  There is much I am not certain of about this life.  But I am certain of that particular knowledge.  And I am certain why the Pioneers left their homes and families to unite with the Saints, marching West, burying lived ones along the way.  I have certainty why they sang "no toil nor labor fear, but with joy wend your way."  There is much humble joy in this knowledge.

Edited September 20, 2018 by Meerkat

[Navidad]

13 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

I disagree with the bolded statement, and believe many or most members would disagree because it implies a prideful condescention on all other religions and what God has called them to do.  It also implies a "Holier than Thou" certitude that sets up the kind of exclusive club mentality you repeatedly describe.

I find much to agree with in your alternative.  God hasn't revealed everything.  We all look through a glass darkly.  I believe God has revealed some unique things to each or many churches that, if embraced, we would be better Christians for it.  The statement "We MUST have certainty or Mormonism is worthless and just another denomination" is flawed.

You will agree there are some things we can be certain of.  We can be certain that Jesus Christ was born.  We can be certain that he taught the importance of virtuous living.  We can be certain that He came to save a fallen world.  We can be certain, on an individual basis, that He came to save us from our sins because He revealed Himself to us personally in that act by the Holy Ghost.  We can be certain that our lives have changed and we look at the world through new eyes.

There is more we can be certain of, more knowledge God can reveal to each of us throughout our lives.  Do we know it all? Absolutely not. 

The problem I have with your writing is that you are the one who appears exclusive and condescending, to me. You cannot allow that anyone has certainty about a particular thing unless you have certainty about it.  And yet, you are certain about a fantastic story of God walking the earth as a man, being tortured and killed to pay for the sins of the world on condition of repentance, and taking up His body again in a glorified and perfected state that will live forever.  You are probably certain, because you know your sins are forgiven, that you will also rise in a glorified state to live forever because Jesus said it, and He has done it.  

I am certain about Joseph Smith because God revealed to me the Book of Mormon is true and another testament of Jesus Christ and that Joseph translated it.  Would I rather have remained a Lutheran?  Yes I would have.  Joining this church hurt my relationship with my parents and other relatives and impacted our fellowship for the rest of their lives.  I have had many Christian friends over the years try to talk me out of it, explain why Joseph Smith was a false prophet, and why the Book of Mormon was plagiarized from other sources.  It has not been as easy as it could have been in another "mainstream" Christian faith.  The thing that has carried me through it is the certainty of the revelation I have received from God.  Fantastic as it is, it is no more fantastic than the positive revelation God gave me that Jesus Christ is my Savior.  Hard as you try, you can't take that away from me.  It is mine.  It is certain, and it is a gift God gave unworthy me because I put in the simple effort He asked of me.  I read.  I prayed, nothing doubting, and God answered.  There is much I am not certain of about this life.  But I am certain of that particular knowledge.  And I am certain why the Pioneers left their homes and families to unite with the Saints, marching West, burying lived ones along the way.  I have certainty why they sang "no toil nor labor fear, but with joy wend your way."  There is much humble joy in this knowledge.

Hi Meerkat: Your last two paragraphs are very insightful to me. I like your statement "You cannot allow that anyone has certainty about a particular thing unless you have certainty about it" That is a powerful indictment and it may be very true. I will have to think about it. However I think you are, in one way miss-characterizing (I don't know how to spell that) my posts. Or, I may have a blind spot in this regard. I don't believe I have ever mentioned the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith in any of my posts. I have no interest in debating theology with my Mormon friends. That has never been my intent. If my writings come across that way, that may be my fault. Or, it may be that your mindset says I am non-Mormon, probably anti-Mormon so you are prepared to argue theology as you have apparently done with your family. I am sorry you have had to go through that. Let me repeat, I fully accept many Mormons who I know as my Christian brothers - literal Christians - not as they "brother" me, but in a much deeper sense. Believing this or that about Joseph Smith will never change that.

I have no need to disregard your certitude as to Joseph Smith, The BOM, the reality of spirit children, the priesthood, exaltation, etc. I won't ever debate those things on this or any other forum. I would also prefer you don't debate footwashing, being a conscientious objector, my not playing cards, etc. with me. Those are my beliefs. I have certitude about them. I don't expect you to believe them or have any certitude about them as well. Each Christian denomination, or group, including Mormonism has its own idiosyncratic unique beliefs that are piled on top of the core gospel. I acknowledge I don't understand the LDS concept of the priesthood, but that is my issue, not yours. My issue with the Mormon faith is two-fold: a gross lack of knowledge about Protestants, especially evangelicals, that is deeply rooted in 19th century experience and bias; and a sense of extraordinary exceptionalism, deeply rooted in on-going revelation and certitude. I think I have pretty much stuck to those two things. I've never discussed unique Mormon theological points, except perhaps to ask clarifying questions. I am agnostic on most of them. I think whenever we talk about religion, the door is wide open to defense mechanisms. I probably project and deny, as do those of other denominations, including Mormons. I would never seek to take your beliefs "away from you." I am trying to do the opposite in fact, I am attending a LDS ward to learn more about those beliefs (and to enjoy all the good food). Quite frankly, sometimes that just makes me more confused (not the food). One of the fine elders in our ward was here the other day. I read him something from the Mormon encyclopedia. His response was a simple shake of the head, assuring me that he doesn't believe that.  Oh well. Quite frankly, I am more interesting in the history, psychology, and sociology of Mormonism than I am in the doctrine. I am way over my earlier years when I was ready to challenge any doctrine that seemed heterodox. My choice in books about Mormonism is changing - although because of this forum I just bought The Holy Spirit by McConkie and Millet. I haven't started it yet. I find the LDS doctrine of the Holy Ghost very confusing, especially related to the non-Mormon's experience with the Holy Ghost - that isn't a criticism, just an observation. Take care, Phil

[Jane_Doe]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

A couple of days ago, someone in this thread said (I'm a poet) - " We MUST have certainty or Mormonism is worthless and just another denomination."  I think this comment encapsulates Mormon Exceptionalism perfectly. It carries within it several very important points:

Except iI would totally disagree with that bolded statement on every level....

Lack of certainty does not remotely equated to worthlessness. 

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

4. I do believe that Mormonism is another denomination. It is a good denomination. It is a vital and alive denomination. It is a restorationist denomination that came out of early 19th century America along with the Church of Christ, the Disciples of Christ, the Seventh Day Adventists, etc. It arose out of its milieu and is a vibrant and alive faith. It has its peculiarities and idiosyncrasies, as do all. There can be no uncertainty about that. My branch of the tree also produces great fruit. It also produces some fruit with worms, holes, and other imperfections in it. Here in Chihuahua we pick our pears before they are ripe and then put them aside for a while to ripen. That may be a good metaphor (I am not sure) for the Christian life. We are all ripening. That process will continue into eternity. Christianity is what is exceptional; all its branches, including your faith and mine are striving to literally to become that exceptionality. None of us are there yet.

Note: I will gladly proclaim from the rooftops the good things and the good people done/present in other Christian churches.  Never ever doubt that.

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Meerkat said:

I've been reading Givens' thought provoking book " Wrestling With The Angel."  He delves into some of the creeds, philosophies, movements and Church leaders and how the Church's view of God was influenced and has evolved (maybe even is evolving.)  I never did like being hemmed in by the Nicene Creed, or other creeds and confessions I couldn't understand.  The idea that a council of imperfect men pulled it together, gave it their stamp of approval and made it the definition of the one true God, and that not understanding or believing it could result in damnation never did set well with me.  

For a people who are often criticized for thinking we have all the answers, there is so much I don't know about God, the future and how it all fits together.  But I am grateful for what I do know and to have the freedom to think about it, and study creeds, philosophies and the ideas of interesting people like yourself.   I don't worry about the illogical idea I will be condemned for wondering about the Godhead, or thinking about any aspect of existence.  When the time is right, I believe I will know as I am known.  

I will tell you what I do know for sure: Jesus Christ knows me personally, and has communicated with me personally.  I believe it was the Holy Ghost that acted upon my heart and gave me this knowledge.

I know that the Book of Mormon is a true book because God has revealed it to me personally and unmistakably.  I have no doubt.  That communication also came in an action upon my heart that I believe was the Holy Ghost responding to a prayer of mine.

There are some other things I believe that have to do with my marriage, authority in the church, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, modern day prophets and Temple covenants.  I also believe signs will follow them that believe.   It happens to my wife and me regularly.

Beyond that, I don't know much.  But I believe those things will get me where I want to go.  They have and will continue to impact my behavior to help me become more holy, more grateful, more virtuous and more servicable to the God I worship and people I meet or associate with every day.

The nature of God, and what I will someday become is currently a hope that I have.  It is explained perfectly in 1 John 1:1-3, which states:

"Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
            2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
            3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure."

That is an explanation of my hope which is in Jesus Christ.  I gladly and humbly wait and study, and pray to know what us beyond that.  All I know is that the more I add to personal virtue, the more I feel God's Divine approval. I also feel the freedom and encouragement from Him to think and experiment on some if these ideas and hold fast to that which I can perceive is good.  And that's enough for me.

Great thoughts!  Thank you!

NAVIDAD!

Read this Givens book and you will much better understand those Mormons here.

And incidentally I reviewed the Book for Interpreter a while back   https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/untangling-scripture-from-the-philosophies-of-men/

 

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

That's because >95% of LDS totally disagree with the statement "I'm a polytheist", just like Trinitarians do.  Believing in multiple persons in ONE God doesn't remotely make a person a polytheists the way Ancient Greeks were (for just one example).  Human languages just really fail at capturing the idea of multiple persons in ONE God. 

Hmmm, yeah, but ask a Jew or Muslim if Christians are monotheists..... 

 

[Meerkat]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

Or, it may be that your mindset says I am non-Mormon, probably anti-Mormon so you are prepared to argue theology as you have apparently done with your family. I am sorry you have had to go through that

The theology wasn't so much a problem with my family.  It was that we had joined an embarrassing, non Christian cult.  We eventually got past that, and Mom defended us when her pastor, teaching a lesson on Mormonism, said we worshipped Joseph Smith.

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

I would also prefer you don't debate footwashing, being a conscientious objector, my not playing cards, etc. with me.

Actually, we believe in footwashing, perhaps a little differently than you do.  Nonetheless, the Savior initiated it among His disciples, and it is a signicant ordinance.  

Regarding CO status, I would defend my family and country and have served in the Army.  But I have always felt there was something noble about Coscientious Objectors who would die rather than pick up arms, or chose to serve as unarmed medics on the battle field.

You are probably familiar with the people of Ammon spoken of in Alma 24, the Anti-Nephi Lehis.  They were coscienteous objectors.  I have no dispute with those who have conscienteous reasons for objecting.  

6 Now there was not one soul among all the people who had been converted unto the Lord that would take up arms against their brethren; nay, they would not even make any preparations for war; yea, and also their king commanded them that they should not.

10 And I also thank my God, yea, my great God, that he hath granted unto us that we might repent of these things, and also that he hath forgiven us of those our many sins and murders which we have committed, and taken away the guilt from our hearts, through the merits of his Son.

12 Now, my best beloved brethren, since God hath taken away our stains, and our swords have become bright, then let us stain our swords no more with the blood of our brethren.
            13 Behold, I say unto you, Nay, let us retain our swords that they be not stained with the blood of our brethren; for perhaps, if we should stain our swords again they can no more be washed bright through the blood of the Son of our great God, which shall be shed for the atonement of our sins.

15 Oh, how merciful is our God! And now behold, since it has been as much as we could do to get our stains taken away from us, and our swords are made bright, let us hide them away that they may be kept bright, as a testimony to our God at the last day, or at the day that we shall be brought to stand before him to be judged, that we have not stained our swords in the blood of our brethren since he imparted his word unto us and has made us clean thereby.
            16 And now, my brethren, if our brethren seek to destroy us, behold, we will hide away our swords, yea, even we will bury them deep in the earth, that they may be kept bright, as a testimony that we have never used them, at the last day; and if our brethren destroy us, behold, we shall go to our God and shall be saved."

Re: playing face cards, Joseph Fielding Smith spoke against it in DOctrines of Salvation volume 3.  

Can't find much to argue with about your sensitive issues.  Maybe next time! 😉

[theplains]

On 9/17/2018 at 8:46 PM, CV75 said:

Yes, and he was living; this is also how all mortals that read and hear the word of God do it. How do you believe God will provide a way for the mortal that never read or heard the word of God, and is now deceased?

I believe that if a person really wishes to know God, He will put a person in his path to explain the gospel.  As for
the deceased, I don't believe in second chances after death.  I believe that its a subtle trap of Satan ... leading the
religious adherents (like Buddhists or Hindus) to procrastinate their choice to accept the message of Christ while
they are still alive when they hear people tell them not to worry because they will have the gospel preached to them
after death if their religion is wrong.

Jim

[theplains]

On 9/18/2018 at 1:23 AM, mfbukowski said:

The eunuch was alive.  So you think this applies to the dead as well?

Or are you saying that somehow people who were born in China in 700 BC could have found someone to teach them about Jesus and baptize them if God wanted them to do so?

Put yourself in my shoes for a moment.  If you believed people did not have a second chance after death, how do you
believe God will judge people who never heard about Jesus and allow them entrance into heaven instead of consigning
them to hell?

Jim

[theplains]

On 9/18/2018 at 8:41 PM, Avatar4321 said:

You mean 1 Peter?

that's not in the D&C

1 Peter is about those in the days of Noah.   

"By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison."

What is the context?   The Bible explains it in the next verse.

"Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a
preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."

The Lord operated through Noah, a preacher of righteousness (2 Peter 2:5).

Jim

[mfbukowski]

21 minutes ago, theplains said:

Put yourself in my shoes for a moment.  If you believed people did not have a second chance after death, how do you
believe God will judge people who never heard about Jesus and allow them entrance into heaven instead of consigning
them to hell?

Jim

I haven't a clue. There's nothing in the Bible to justify that belief. And if there is why do evangelicals not believe that?

So you should be Mormon!

To me all evangelicals must believe that those people will burn in hell forever.

How anybody could believe that is unfathomable. Therefore being an Evangelical to me is unfathomable.

 I have heard some explanations but they all sound pretty irrational to me, mostly involving predestination in some form or other.

Edited September 22, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Jane_Doe]

34 minutes ago, theplains said:

I believe that if a person really wishes to know God, He will put a person in his path to explain the gospel.

Okay, so in your view no one in the Americas before Columbus "really wished" to know God.  Nice to know. 

30 minutes ago, theplains said:

Put yourself in my shoes for a moment.  If you believed people did not have a second chance after death, how do you
believe God will judge people who never heard about Jesus and allow them entrance into heaven instead of consigning
them to hell?

Jim

I would be forced to come to the conclusion that either 1) I was wrong about believing no chances after death, or 2) the "God" I was worshiping is unjust.

[Jeanne]

Jeanne has new articles of faith:  Yes...I stole them..but love them.

1.  that newer isn't better and there is something inherently good in hard work.

2,  that friends who feel like family are the best kind of friends and that nothing matters more than family.

3.  that today is  a gift and that very day miracles are scattered about if only we have eyes to see them.

4.  in seeking the balance between hustle and rest and striving to be passionate about both:  a leisurely first cup of coffee start the day mindfully and then at day''s

end not clocking out of a job till you''re proud.

5. that failure needn't be a negative thing:  rather, we learn from our mistakes and fail smarter the next time.

6.  in doing work that w love and, in choosing that, nudging others toward doing what they love.

7.  IN courage, in cartwheeling past our comfort zones and trying something a little bit scary every day.

8.  that its time for the pendulum of trend to swing back to the basics

9.  in subtle beauty, the that doesnt deteriorate with age or wear.

10.  and of all heroic pursuits large or samll, we believe there may be none greater than a life well loved.

(And to make it 13)

11.  I believe in God and HIs Son Jesus Christ.

12.  I believe in the Atonement..the resurrection..and eternal life.

13.  I believe I have a Heavenly Mother who really needs me to talk to her...and vise versa...

Edited September 22, 2018 by Jeanne

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Okay, so in your view no one in the Americas before Columbus "really wished" to know God.  Nice to know. 

I would be forced to come to the conclusion that either 1) I was wrong about believing no chances after death, or 2) the "God" I was worshiping is unjust.

Here is one of the more forgiving Protestant views on Salvation which is so ambiguous as to make "accepting Christ" pretty unnecessary in my opinion.  It is virtually Universalism.

I mean what happens if a kid is beaten by his parents and so he rejects Christianity- or others just think it is absurd, or perhaps Romans who loved to watch people die in the games- just because everyone else did, like we watch football?  After all foreigners are not "human"...

To me this is so general as to be no answer at all:

Quote

 

I know the Bible says that knowing Jesus is the only way to get to heaven. But there are people in remote parts of the world who may never get a chance to hear about God or Jesus. What happens to them when they die?

You're right, the Bible is clear that apart from Christ, you can't go to heaven. Jesus said, "No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6).

How does this apply to someone who never hears the gospel? The Bible says, "The truth about God is known to them instinctively. God has put this knowledge in their hearts. From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God" (Romans 1:19-20, New Living Translation).

No one has an excuse for not knowing God. That knowledge comes to us naturally—much like the way we instinctively reach for water when we're thirsty. It's not something we have to learn.

And it's not just instinct that draws people to God. God uses visual aids too—his creation. We can see God through the divine design of nature.

When someone responds to these instincts and "visual aids" and truly reaches out to God, God will make sure that person understands his or her need for Christ. God, who loves us beyond comprehension and wants everyone to go to heaven (2 Peter 3:9), will arrange the details for that person to know the gospel—through a missionary, a tract, a Bible, whatever.

You might think, But what if a missionary never visits that island, or a tract never falls into those hands. What then? If those things never happen, we can be assured that God, who is loving and just, is still in control. God is sovereign, and he will always do what is right.

God is an awesome God, and nothing will stop him from getting the good news to even the most remote parts of the world, "to the ends of the earth" (Acts 1:8). And as if to prove it, God even gave John a glimpse of heaven, where he saw people "from every tribe and language and people from every nation" (Revelation 5:9).

The bottom line: God is obviously able to reveal the truth about himself to anyone, anywhere. But he often uses us to do it. That's why Jesus' last words to us were instructions to tell everyone, everywhere, the good news of God's love (Matthew 28:19-20).

God calls all of us to share his love with the people around us. Maybe he's even calling you to take this good news "to the ends of the earth." Wouldn't that be exciting?

 

Uh, no, it seems like they can do just fine without the gospel!  Everyone knows it "instinctively" anyway!

https://www.christianitytoday.com/iyf/advice/faithdoubt/what-if-someone-never-hears-about-jesus.html

If we know " instinctively" in our hearts- WHY did Jesus have to die for us at all??

It makes no sense to me.  The outcome would be the same if he never came.

And it is very presentist as well.  Who would have a tract of know of Christ- as has been mentioned already- in 3000 BC pretty much anywhere in the world?  The presumption is that the bible has existed forever AND people generally knew about it before it existed.

Edited September 23, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I haven't a clue. There's nothing in the Bible to justify that belief. And if there is why do evangelicals not believe that?

So you should be Mormon!

To me all evangelicals must believe that those people will burn in hell forever.

How anybody could believe that is unfathomable. Therefore being an Evangelical to me is unfathomable.

 I have heard some explanations but they all sound pretty irrational to me, mostly involving predestination in some form or other.

Oh my! You just haven't been listening to me! 😀 I am a rock solid evangelical and I disagree with others who may be evangelicals on this forum. That doesn't mean they are wrong and I am right; it just shows the diversity in the evangelical community. Why are you insisting even after you know better to lump evangelicals in one monolithic group? Sigh, I think you are much more biased against evangelicals than most of them are against Mormons, but your blind spot just keeps rolling along. I think you simply don't want to change your perspective about evangelicals so therefore you never will. "To Me all evangelicals must believe that those people will burn in hell forever." You keep insisting on that even after I, as an evangelical tell your differently. Sigh. You are stuck my friend in your prejudice and bias. Then you are quick to go back to predestination, even after you know that most evangelicals don't believe in predestination - because I have told you so. You are stuck in your prejudice, and 19th century bias against evangelicals - who didn't even exist in the 19th century. Oh my! You are a very bright guy - open up your mind to the wonderful diversity within evangelicalism about the future status of those who have never heard. Oh and by the way, evangelicals and denominations are not the same thing. Evangelicals cross over many denominations; they are pan-denominational,  including Mormonism! But I forget, you don't seem to think it is possible for there to be Mormon evangelicals!