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

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I just posted you a long reply and then accidentally shut it down when my son came in to show me something on YouTube. I don't have the energy to re-create it. Maybe tomorrow!

I hate when that happens!

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Spammer said:

Hi there. Just a reminder that Coptic Orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy are the same in every respect, apart from their christology (miaphysitism vs diaphysitism, respectively).  Coptic and EO chrismation rituals share an identical purpose and theology, although the wording is somewhat different.

Scroll down about 2/3 of the way for the text of the anointing ritual:

http://www.saintjonah.org/services/chrismation.doc

I knew that, but thanks for the evidence.

 Have not seen it before, surely Orthodox claims for authenticity are the strongest historically of any! 

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Spammer said:

Any similarity between Coptic/Eastern Orthodox anointing and LDS practices pertains to the LDS temple, not to the LDS confirmation ritual where the gift of the Holy Ghost is bestowed by the laying on of hands. In Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, the anointing is part of bestowing the gift of the Holy Spirit after baptism (confirmation/chrismation...same thing). In the LDS tradition, anointing the body with oil is not part of confirmation.  Instead, it’s part of a separate initiatory ritual found only in the temples.  

I became an Orthodox catechumen in an Antiochian Church. I love Psalms chanted in Arabic...and in English, Slavonic, Coptic, Greek, and Aramaic, all of which can be found in Orthodox churches in the US.

 

Noted.

And one must be a "Catechumen" for at least a year for us as well before entering the temple, preceded by a bishops interview not unlike the one in your link.

Even in the Roman Rite historically catechumens had a special shortened liturgy in the baptistery not being able to enter the cathedral. That was the case through the Renaissance period, then Rome abandoned the practice. Old European Cathedrals still have Baptistries of course.

Edited September 24, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

Sorry, I am not following you. I am not sure which sacraments Joseph "re-created." Certainly the laying on of hands as an ordinance  has been practiced consistently from New Testament times in a number of settings and groups. I had hands laid on me three times in two different denominations in my life, not any of which was for being sick. Orson Hyde and Sidney Rigdon both came out of Campbellite groups, who practiced the laying on of hands. It is apparent that Hyde had a lot to do with the creation and codification of early Church doctrines. He may have written that letter (Wentworth?) that became the articles of faith. I don't remember exactly and don't have time to look it up, but I think he wrote the letter. The early Methodists preceded the Saints and certainly practiced confirmation by the laying on of hands. The Coptic rite as you linked to is quite elaborate and was practiced on babies. You do have my attention, however. Please tell me more about specific sacraments that the early Mormons re-created from the early church that were not in place in other denominations in 1830 or before? Rigdon had a huge influence on the Campbell brothers, as he did on Joseph. He was Joseph's Melanchton. "Which one" is your question? Christianity represents the one faith and one baptism, the one Lord, and the one God, Spirit and Father. The one is the tree; not the branches. Don't forget all the other "ones" in Eph. 4. The context is vital. I do not believe Paul was talking about the form or manner of baptism. He was talking, I believe about spiritual baptism (not water) which is the baptism "into Christ" of Galatians 3. Paul repeatedly uses that phrase. That is the one baptism - the baptism into Christ. Certainly the one faith is the Christian faith. The one Lord is the one master - Christ. The one Spirit is the Holy Spirit. All three persons of the Godhead are there! Aren't you proud of me, I didn't say all three persons of the trinity are there? I know you wouldn't like that! 😊

 I am talking about the three quarters of Mormon Doctrine and ordinances you do not understand.  These occur in the temple and closely parallel the most historic rites in the Orthodox churches, and are very clearly alluded to in the New Testament.

 

 

Edited September 24, 2018 by mfbukowski

[theplains]

22 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So I guess it is true that we worship a different God.   

If Heavenly Father is not a man who became a God, would you consider this a false God?  If Jesus is not the
first spirit child of heavenly parents who became a God when he reached a pinnacle of intelligence, would
you consider this to be a false Christ?

Jim

[Jane_Doe]

2 minutes ago, theplains said:

If Heavenly Father is not a man who became a God, would you consider this a false God?  If Jesus is not the
first spirit child of heavenly parents who became a God when he reached a pinnacle of intelligence, would
you consider this to be a false Christ?

Jim

Do you worship a different God than the Bible because you believe salvation is dependent on man's ability to pass a theology test?

[theplains]

4 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Do you worship a different God than the Bible because you believe salvation is dependent on man's ability to pass a theology test?

Salvation is by faith. But putting your faith in a false deity won't save.  That's what I meant.  Like Jehovah's Witness. They put their
faith in someone they believe is really Michael the Archangel.  You can decide for yourself if this is a false Christ.

Thanks,
Jim

[Navidad]

5 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Do you worship a different God than the Bible because you believe salvation is dependent on man's ability to pass a theology test?

You all have really lost me. Who believes salvation is dependent on man's ability to pass a theology test?

[Navidad]

16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

 I am talking about the three quarters of Mormon Doctrine and ordinances you do not understand.  These occur in the temple and closely parallel the most historic rites in the Orthodox churches, and are very clearly alluded to in the New Testament.

 

 

Don't under estimate me. What I don't understand is why we are having a good discussion and then you take a swipe at me. Your swipes come out of left field! I have a pretty good idea of what is alluded to in the New Testament, I have studied historic rites in the Orthodox churches, and I think I understand the rites and rituals of the LDS temple. For you to think otherwise is naive. I certainly understand where the three come together. I don't need you to, nor am I asking you to explain any further. I respect your covenants. Your out of nowhere digs are what bother me.

[Spammer]

43 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Noted.

And one must be a "Catechumen" for at least a year for us as well before entering the temple, preceded by a bishops interview not unlike the one in your link.

Yep, a period of instruction plus an interview by the bishop or his designee have ancient roots.

Edited September 24, 2018 by Spammer

[Jane_Doe]

31 minutes ago, theplains said:

Salvation is by faith. But putting your faith in a false deity won't save.  That's what I meant. 

Man's salvation is not dependent on his understanding of God.  

Please, move on from proselytizing such a man-centric doctrine.  

[Jane_Doe]

32 minutes ago, Navidad said:

You all have really lost me. Who believes salvation is dependent on man's ability to pass a theology test?

@theplains (whether or not he'll admit it with his mouth).  And he continually proselytizes it on this forum, trying to get LDS folks to abandon our faith and adopt his instead.   It is irritating.   

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

If Heavenly Father is not a man who became a God, would you consider this a false God?  If Jesus is not the
first spirit child of heavenly parents who became a God when he reached a pinnacle of intelligence, would
you consider this to be a false Christ?

Jim

Well I had a long post for you which disappeared when I clicked the wrong tab in looking for a link.

I hate that and wish there was some way of restoring what was previously written- I suppose it all should be copied elsewhere or whatever.

I  consider the Mormon paradigm the most useful and therefore "accurate" model for truths which cannot be discovered any other way.

It is the best paradigm or theory or model about God to improve humanity.  The others seem frankly quite irrational to me.

I do not use the terms true or false unless I have defined their use- which was what the long post was about.

To me, and to create an analogy I think the old "Consubstantial Trinity belief is not justifiable logically and therefore useless for today's society since it does not teach us anything about being "good" or kind or trying to be like Jesus.

I think the idea that Jesus died to balance the scales between mercy and justice is .......  unfounded.

I affirm most emphatically that Jesus took away the effects of my sins and that I will live again and can live forever, but not based on the old Christian model.

If that is calling it "false" then so be it.  I affirm the Mormon model as far better and therefore "true".

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Don't under estimate me. What I don't understand is why we are having a good discussion and then you take a swipe at me. Your swipes come out of left field! I have a pretty good idea of what is alluded to in the New Testament, I have studied historic rites in the Orthodox churches, and I think I understand the rites and rituals of the LDS temple. For you to think otherwise is naive. I certainly understand where the three come together. I don't need you to, nor am I asking you to explain any further. I respect your covenants. Your out of nowhere digs are what bother me.

I truly apologize and hope you see my impatience and gruffness at times the way you would take it from a dear brother who definitely can be a total jerk at times.  I am continually trying to do better, and hope you can forgive me.

But I do get frustrated when you who know Mormonism so well ask a question like:

Quote

 

Sorry, I am not following you. I am not sure which sacraments Joseph "re-created." Certainly the laying on of hands as an ordinance  has been practiced consistently from New Testament times in a number of settings and groups. I had hands laid on me three times in two different denominations in my life, not any of which was for being sick.

 

 

 

and then:

Quote

 

The Coptic rite as you linked to is quite elaborate and was practiced on babies. You do have my attention, however. Please tell me more about specific sacraments that the early Mormons re-created from the early church that were not in place in other denominations in 1830 or before?

 

 

 

The answer of course are that these are found in the temple.

I apologize for my answer but was surprised that you who " understand the rites and rituals of the LDS temple." would ask the question, leading me to "underestimate" your knowledge.

I am still quite confused by the question quite frankly.

Perhaps you were aware of the Eastern Orthodox liturgies and were asking about those OTHER THAN Eastern Orthodox?

As Spammer has already shown for us, therefore not requiring another source which would be readily available, those ordinances are performed on converts as well which you would have known had you been familiar with them to include them unmentioned in your question, If you were including Orthodoxy in asking about ordinances "early Mormons re-created from the early church that were not in place in other denominations in 1830 or before."

So then what WAS your question? 

It seems that your central question is what makes Mormons unique that would give us a sense of "exceptionalism" and I repeatedly answer "the temple" but it seems that that answer is ignored and you ask the same thing again.

What am I missing?

 

Edited September 25, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I truly apologize and hope you see my impatience and gruffness at times the way you would take it from a dear brother who definitely can be a total jerk at times.  I am continually trying to do better, and hope you can forgive me.

But I do get frustrated when you who know Mormonism so well ask a question like:

and then:

The answer of course are that these are found in the temple.

I apologize for my answer but was surprised that you who " understand the rites and rituals of the LDS temple." would ask the question, leading me to "underestimate" your knowledge.

I am still quite confused by the question quite frankly.

Perhaps you were aware of the Eastern Orthodox liturgies and were asking about those OTHER THAN Eastern Orthodox?

As Spammer has already shown for us, therefore not requiring another source which would be readily available, those ordinances are performed on converts as well which you would have known had you been familiar with them to include them unmentioned in your question, If you were including Orthodoxy in asking about ordinances "early Mormons re-created from the early church that were not in place in other denominations in 1830 or before."

So then what WAS your question? 

It seems that your central question is what makes Mormons unique that would give us a sense of "exceptionalism" and I repeatedly answer "the temple" but it seems that that answer is ignored and you ask the same thing again.

What am I missing?

 

Thanks for your reply. The error in thinking was mine. I understand rites and rituals in the temple; I don't think of them as sacraments or ordinances. I was confused over the use of the word  "sacrament."  Somewhere last week I read that at one time there were 17 ordinances  in the LDS basket of ordinances. I tried to recreate them all in my mind and failed miserably. I think the article was about the dedication of graves and how that process has changed, especially in who can administer it. It also mentioned the second anointing which is rarely done any more. My question and confusion was in not correctly identifying certain acts in the temple as sacramental. Off topic completely, In my day job in LDS history I am trying to develop an accurate list of MMM perpetrators who hid out in the Mexican colonies at one time or another. i should probably stick with that sort of stuff, but I don't think you guys are too interested in obscure LDS history!  Can I tell you a story anyway since it is half time and the Bucs are not doing well? Isaac Haight came down here and was hiding out under a false name, Horton or Heaton - I forget which. Moses Thatcher was holding a priesthood quorum at Turley Camp, about thirty minutes from my house and asked all the high priests to raise their hand. Brother Horton/Heaton raised his hand and my favorite LDS colonist George Calvin Williams (Parson Williams - since he had been a Baptist itinerant minister) prior to his conversion asked his neighbor who that guy was? Brother Horton/Heaton was the reply. Williams got quite irate and said no its not, that's Isaac Haight. Somehow he had know Haight from somewhere. Parson Williams got furious; it seems that back in Arkansas in his Baptist days he had married two couples in the northwest part of the state and had then been their pastor. They were two of the couples who were killed in MMM. Apparently he had been very close to them. He was angry that Apostle Moses Thatcher was allowing Haight to hide out in the colonies. So he confronted Thatcher the next day. Williams was one fiery guy, like most Baptist preachers. He demanded that Thatcher give Haight the boot. Apostle Thatcher did so and Haight left to go back to Utah. Somewhere in southern Arizona he got word that President John Taylor wanted him to come to Utah to receive his second anointing. did I mention this was in 1886?  He only got to Thatcher Arizona where he had a heart attack or stroke and died. He was indicted but never arrested and never made it to his second anointing somewhere in Utah. The temple there was not yet dedicated and Taylor was in exile, but they were performing such rites at a few non-temple locations at that time. Anyway, now you know the rest of the story. I usually learn about something like the second anointing via some historical event like this and then have to dig through my books to learn about it. There is a chapter in a book about the colonies entitled "They came here for their health." It is about folks who came down here to hide out for some misdeed. James Nathaniel Walker was the most mysterious. I have spent countless hours trying to figure out what happened to him here. He disappeared! Methinks he faked his death and left as part of  the 1912 exodus under an assumed name as well. He had escaped from the Yuma Territorial Prison where he was sentenced to ten years for incest (not plural marriage). The story was that Pancho Villa's men killed him in his home in Dublan. But, that was 1912 and Villa had no men at that time. Ok half time is over. Oh, and back to your point. I can certainly concur that the temple sealings, baptisms, and endowments are unique. No question about that. I have never thought about them as "exceptional"in the way I am using the term. Hence I guess I have ignored that line of thinking.  I will have to ponder over that as the Bucs go down to defeat. Then as a good Mennonite I will have to wash defeat. Get it?

[RevTestament]

On 9/24/2018 at 11:04 AM, Spammer said:

Hi there. Just a reminder that Coptic Orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy are the same in every respect, apart from their christology (miaphysitism vs diaphysitism, respectively).  Coptic and EO chrismation rituals share an identical purpose and theology, although the wording is somewhat different.

Scroll down about 2/3 of the way for the text of the anointing ritual:

http://www.saintjonah.org/services/chrismation.doc

I find it interesting and continually learn about my Christian brothers. 

21 hours ago, Spammer said:

Any similarity between Coptic/Eastern Orthodox anointing and LDS practices pertains to the LDS temple, not to the LDS confirmation ritual where the gift of the Holy Ghost is bestowed by the laying on of hands. In Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, the anointing is part of bestowing the gift of the Holy Spirit after baptism (confirmation/chrismation...same thing). In the LDS tradition, anointing the body with oil is not part of confirmation.  Instead, it’s part of a separate initiatory ritual found only in the temples.  

I became an Orthodox catechumen in an Antiochian Church. I love Psalms chanted in Arabic...and in English, Slavonic, Coptic, Greek, and Aramaic, all of which can be found in Orthodox churches in the US.

This seems somewhat contradictory to me. I do see a similarity between the laying on of hands and bestowing the Gift of the Holy Spirit in the LDS confirmation and the Orthodox practice, yet you say there is not, but that the similarity is in the LDS temple initiatory ordinance. The LDS initiatory ordinance is a series of blessings or promises for those willing to undergo the ordinance. It is not necessary as part of general Church membership. Receiving the gift of the guidance of the Holy Spirit is something promised to all Church members, since they are confirmed as part of their becoming a member. This is much like the Orthodox Church as I read it. The anointing with oil is not essential to LDS Church membership. That is the major difference I see. 

[RevTestament]

19 hours ago, theplains said:

If Heavenly Father is not a man who became a God, would you consider this a false God?  If Jesus is not the
first spirit child of heavenly parents who became a God when he reached a pinnacle of intelligence, would
you consider this to be a false Christ?

Jim

If Jesus is going to lose His resurrected body when He is called the everlasting Father per Isa 9:6, would you consider this to be a false belief? And that notions that the everlasting Father does not have a body to be false? or false misinterpretation?

[Spammer]

14 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I find it interesting and continually learn about my Christian brothers. 

This seems somewhat contradictory to me. I do see a similarity between the laying on of hands and bestowing the Gift of the Holy Spirit in the LDS confirmation and the Orthodox practice, yet you say there is not, but that the similarity is in the LDS temple initiatory ordinance. The LDS initiatory ordinance is a series of blessings or promises for those willing to undergo the ordinance. It is not necessary as part of general Church membership. Receiving the gift of the guidance of the Holy Spirit is something promised to all Church members, since they are confirmed as part of their becoming a member. This is much like the Orthodox Church as I read it. The anointing with oil is not essential to LDS Church membership. That is the major difference I see. 

I agree. I was pointing out that anointing the body is associated with different rites in our traditions - with bestowal of the Holy Ghost in ours and as an initiatory temple rite in yours. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Spammer said:

I agree. I was pointing out that anointing the body is associated with different rites in our traditions - with bestowal of the Holy Ghost in ours and as an initiatory temple rite in yours. 

I could see however how if the temple was eliminated in a Christian group they might very well keep it pieces of the temple ordinances and incorporate them elsewhere.

That is kind of the way I see it.

In both contexts the anointing is a preparation for blessings yet to follow. That is where they serve similar purposes.

And of course Orthodoxy has a very healthy tradition of theosis as well. It does not mean the same thing as it does for us but nevertheless there is that looking forward to becoming like God.

So I am sure that both traditions come from very ancient sources, we see ours as a restoration and you see yours as a continuation of an ongoing liturgy.

[mfbukowski]

On 9/24/2018 at 7:52 PM, Navidad said:

Thanks for your reply. The error in thinking was mine. I understand rites and rituals in the temple; I don't think of them as sacraments or ordinances. I was confused over the use of the word  "sacrament."  Somewhere last week I read that at one time there were 17 ordinances  in the LDS basket of ordinances. I tried to recreate them all in my mind and failed miserably. I think the article was about the dedication of graves and how that process has changed, especially in who can administer it. It also mentioned the second anointing which is rarely done any more. My question and confusion was in not correctly identifying certain acts in the temple as sacramental.

No I am not particularly interested in his-story when the other guy always has something contradicting it that is HIS-story.

Ever talked to multiple siblings about what "really happened" when they were kids?

At any rate you MUST read this new book by Terryl Givens- "Feeding the Flock"

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_19?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=feeding+the+flock+givens&sprefix=feeding+the+flock+g%2Caps%2C277&crid=I3GWN8SKV5TM

which is an encyclopedic account of LDS church practices and how they evolved - to understand the "sacramental" nature of LDS thought and how it differs from Protestantism .  In Protestantism "sacraments" took on a symbolic character instead of their original purpose - to actually cause a change in the spirit of the individual receiving them

Quote

The three sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders confer, in addition to grace, a sacramental character or seal by which the Christian shares in Christ's priesthood and is made a member of the Church according to different states and functions. This configuration to Christ and to the Church, brought about by the Spirit, is indelible; it remains for ever in the Christian as a positive disposition for grace, a promise and guarantee of divine protection, and as a vocation to divine worship and to the service of the Church. Therefore these sacraments can never be repeated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramental_character

So in order for these outward actions to actually leave an indelible "mark" on the spirit- someone with the power and the authority must  be able to provide God's authority to do so- or else the exercise becomes symbolic.

So Protestants let them go symbolic and so the entire need for authority in Protestantism was lost.

Matt 16

Quote

 

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

 

"And I will give unto YOU....".

That is a personal statement that this individual NOW has the authority to act for God to make an "indelible mark" on the spirits of those upon whom he exercises his authority- to seal in heaven and on earth.   This is not symbolism- this is a real physical change of some sort.

Now let's look at the LDS version of this as Givens shows- this is my interpretation of what he says

For LDS NOTHING is "spiritual" in the sense of being immaterial.  We are taught that spirit itself is matter- just "more refined" than regular matter.  I suppose in our modern world we might see the spirit as some sort of field or plasma or some sort of other "physical" entity of a matter as yet unknown and undefined.   We also think there are no "miracles" - just science that is not yet known.  If you took a cellphone back to 1650 and still were able to connect to the internet, you would be burned as a witch!

All these are central paradigms found in Mormonism.

So Givens makes the point that (In an extensive explanation in chapter 3) that considering the nature of the embodied God of Mormonism and the materialist view of our theology, our "ordinances" into "sacraments"- the actual physical action of making covenants in the temple for example, restores their importance in reflecting the physical nature of the God of Judaism.

[Navidad]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No I am not particularly interested in his-story when the other guy always has something contradicting it that is HIS-story.

Ever talked to multiple siblings about what "really happened" when they were kids?

At any rate you MUST read this new book by Terryl Givens- "Feeding the Flock"

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_19?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=feeding+the+flock+givens&sprefix=feeding+the+flock+g%2Caps%2C277&crid=I3GWN8SKV5TM

which is an encyclopedic account of LDS church practices and how they evolved - to understand the "sacramental" nature of LDS thought and how it differs from Protestantism .  In Protestantism "sacraments" took on a symbolic character instead of their original purpose - to actually cause a change in the spirit of the individual receiving them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramental_character

So in order for these outward actions to actually leave an indelible "mark" on the spirit- someone with the power and the authority must  be able to provide God's authority to do so- or else the exercise becomes symbolic.

So Protestants let them go symbolic and so the entire need for authority in Protestantism was lost.

Matt 16

"And I will give unto YOU....".

That is a personal statement that this individual NOW has the authority to act for God to make an "indelible mark" on the spirits of those upon whom he exercises his authority- to seal in heaven and on earth.   This is not symbolism- this is a real physical change of some sort.

Now let's look at the LDS version of this as Givens shows- this is my interpretation of what he says

For LDS NOTHING is "spiritual" in the sense of being immaterial.  We are taught that spirit itself is matter- just "more refined" than regular matter.  I suppose in our modern world we might see the spirit as some sort of field or plasma or some sort of other "physical" entity of a matter as yet unknown and undefined.   We also think there are no "miracles" - just science that is not yet known.  If you took a cellphone back to 1650 and still were able to connect to the internet, you would be burned as a witch!

All these are central paradigms found in Mormonism.

So Givens makes the point that (In an extensive explanation in chapter 3) that considering the nature of the embodied God of Mormonism and the materialist view of our theology, our "ordinances" into "sacraments"- the actual physical action of making covenants in the temple for example, restores their importance in reflecting the physical nature of the God of Judaism.

Ok I will get it. I like Given's works. I will simply say, the Indelible mark on the spirit must take a while to come into actuality. So far I have seen children being baptized who seem more concerned with the cookies - before and after! And yes, that is the same when sacraments are given to those too immature to understand in other faiths as well. So far all the kids I have seen have been within 5 days of turning 8. The parents are in a hurry regardless of the maturity of the child. It seems to me to be an action more for the parents than for the child. - this is not unique to the LDS faith. The process certainly is, in reality of a symbolic nature for them (the child). You might be saying there is a change they won't appreciate until later? A six year old certainly knows when he or she has done wrong, 8 years of age is certainly a symbolic age. I would tend to have more empathy for your approach if you waited for such a powerful sacrament until 24 - 30 years of age.

And I don't see how you leap from your Wikipedia quote to needing to have "authority." That is an LDS paradigm that seems to me to always leap out of apriori  belief; not the context of the point being made. You believe you have a unique authority; so therefore the action necessitates a unique authority. That is the essence of exceptionalism that stems from in-group differentiation. After a year, I am still waiting to observe some unique manifestation of that authority; not as in tongues or miracles, but in the sense of a quiet calm unique spirituality, a holiness, a passion, that is palpable on the part of the one with the authority, or a unique sense of God's presence. I have seen that in a handful of people over my life. It is palpable. One can sense it. Anyway, I will get the book - an early Christmas present!

I repeatedly hear Saints talking about ministry lately, but most often in the context of gaining their way through the exaltation process. That always seems to slip out in the discussion. I have suggested to them that ministry is less than, when done for gain. The room gets quiet. And yes I don't believe the sacraments impart grace. They are indeed symbolic of grace. Just like footwashing is not done because the person's feet are dirty - for sure. In that case it is a sacrament more for the one doing the action than for the recipient. It is symbolic of humility; of servant leadership - not having to be the  first one to receive the sacrament; all other lesser folks must wait. Waiting for the "presiding officer" is indeed symbolic of Mormonism. The first shall be first!  Footwashing is on the other hand an amazing sacrament - done in remembrance of the time when Christ did it because the feet really were no kidding dirty. He cleansed their feet. Today that has no literal counterpart in our culture, so yes, it is symbolic, just as is baptism -- symbolic of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. When properly executed it is a powerful symbol for both the one committing the act and the recipient. I prefer to see baptisms outdoors where there is some discomfort for both parties engaged in the sacrament. It makes the act come to life a bit more. In a sterile controlled environment like inside a nice chapel with just the right amount of water and a controlled environment; it is symbolic . . . and comfortable. It is early in the morning; I don't mean to be negative - but so far I am impressed and somewhat saddened that everything seems so controlled in the LDS faith. Everything.......   Constant reminders and lessons on tithing. Constant reminders and lessons on the need for the folks to do temple work. Boy, there is a lot of persuasion and reminding going on!  But, everything certainly is in order! Nothing messy about anything!

We have volunteers who show up at the chapel every Saturday morning to clean. We each take our turn. I am impressed that there is rarely a need on the part of the leaders to remind people to show up to clean. I like that. I love running the vacuum and looking at the beautiful paintings in the hallways - great vacuums by the way. It is quiet and I have a great sense of the benefit of the act I am committing. I find it one of the most spiritual experiences of the weekend - it is symbolic and it is much like the sacrament of foot-washing!

Edited September 26, 2018 by Navidad

[RevTestament]

On 9/24/2018 at 5:27 PM, mfbukowski said:

Well I had a long post for you which disappeared when I clicked the wrong tab in looking for a link.

I hate that and wish there was some way of restoring what was previously written- I suppose it all should be copied elsewhere or whatever.

I've heard several complain of that as late. Using a desktop computer I seem to have no problem with this. In fact just within the last two days, I hit an errant key, and my post disappeared. I've noticed with the last software update done by MDDB there is a safety feature. I go back and click on the editor box where i had been typing, and the exact material I had been typing "magically" reappears. Hallellujah! There will also be an editorial X you can hit which informs you that you can "clear" the memory of the editor, so don't hit that! However, I don't know if this works with all browsers. For instance if one is using their smart phone or some dictation software, it may not work. Just a heads up.

Edited September 26, 2018 by RevTestament

[Jane_Doe]

On 9/24/2018 at 1:26 PM, Jane_Doe said:

I hear your concerns @Navidad about "Mormon expectionalism", but I also feel like I've explained a million times over that LDS *do* acknowledge others as Christian.  We aren't calling anyone else's faith dead or anything like that.  

How am I, and LDS person, supposed to convey that to a non-LDS person without "same differencing" beliefs?  Cause yes, while I enthusiastically acknowledge a Calvinist as a Christian with a living faith, I also honestly don't belief the idea of limited-atonement is Christ's Truth.  Yes, I'll happily acknowledge your relationship with Christ, but would still also like to teach you the Truth that Christ died for ALL mankind?

 

(Obviously the above Calvinist example is just an example with generic "you"s)

*bumping this up*

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

 I will simply say, the Indelible mark on the spirit must take a while to come into actuality. So far I have seen children being baptized who seem more concerned with the cookies - before and after! And yes, that is the same when sacraments are given to those too immature to understand in other faiths as well. So far all the kids I have seen have been within 5 days of turning 8. The parents are in a hurry regardless of the maturity of the child. It seems to me to be an action more for the parents than for the child. - this is not unique to the LDS faith. The process certainly is, in reality of a symbolic nature for them (the child). You might be saying there is a change they won't appreciate until later? A six year old certainly knows when he or she has done wrong, 8 years of age is certainly a symbolic age. I would tend to have more empathy for your approach if you waited for such a powerful sacrament until 24 - 30 years of age.

I am impressed to follow up with some of your points. You are a truly humble man, and your words resound in my soul. I will say my experience at LDS baptisms has been entirely different. I've attended several, and performed the baptisms of my own children. I've attended some of the baptisms of my friend's children, and was asked to serve as a helper in another. At all of them there was a reverent spirit. My own baptism into the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS was when I was 13. However, I was baptized as a Baptist when I was eight. I was thoroughly aware of the proceedings and its purpose, and my countenance was in accordance with the occasion. In fact my most memorable thing about it was when I went home and prayed that afternoon to be forgiven of my sins. I remember a feeling of elation and joy I had not encountered before, and that's when I got up and bounded around the room (including the beds of course) in a childish display of anti-decorum. I'm sure the Lord did not mind, however.... Suffice it to say that I believe 8 is a safe age when essentially all children are old enough to have learned the significance of their actions and what is right and wrong. Even the OT speaks of children becoming old enough to learn right and wrong. Can we really become a follower of Christ before that point? I think we have to conclude no that we cannot. However, I don't see a lot of sense in waiting till I was say 24. When I found the Church of Jesus Christ I was bursting to join, and be every bit a follower. It would have been painful to be forced to wait.

Quote

And I don't see how you leap from your Wikipedia quote to needing to have "authority." That is an LDS paradigm that seems to me to always leap out of apriori  belief; not the context of the point being made. You believe you have a unique authority; so therefore the action necessitates a unique authority. That is the essence of exceptionalism that stems from in-group differentiation. After a year, I am still waiting to observe some unique manifestation of that authority; not as in tongues or miracles, but in the sense of a quiet calm unique spirituality, a holiness, a passion, that is palpable on the part of the one with the authority, or a unique sense of God's presence. I have seen that in a handful of people over my life. It is palpable. One can sense it. Anyway, I will get the book - an early Christmas present!

Perhaps. I certainly felt and believed Yeshua had forgiven my sins at age 8. However, from what we know of the NT, Yeshua asked those who were ordained of God or by Himself to baptize. It certainly does not hurt to be done by those with authority to ensure it is done properly. Not any 'ol dunking will do. As you note, LDS are all about authority...

Quote

I prefer to see baptisms outdoors where there is some discomfort for both parties engaged in the sacrament. It makes the act come to life a bit more. In a sterile controlled environment like inside a nice chapel with just the right amount of water and a controlled environment; it is symbolic . . . and comfortable. It is early in the morning; I don't mean to be negative - but so far I am impressed and somewhat saddened that everything seems so controlled in the LDS faith. Everything.......   Constant reminders and lessons on tithing. Constant reminders and lessons on the need for the folks to do temple work. Boy, there is a lot of persuasion and reminding going on!  But, everything certainly is in order! Nothing messy about anything!

Early baptisms were done in "living water" or water outside which was moving. That water brought life, and could be drunk. It was not considered stagnant or dangerous. However, in northern environs, that would prove quite cold or even virtually impossible like in the winter. The sacrament  may miss its importance if the one being baptized is shivering uncontrollably. In the modern day and age of treated water, the imagery significance of "living water" loses its import. Nevertheless, the earliest members of the Church were baptized in rivers it seems with Joseph and Oliver being the first so baptized. 

In all earnestness one thing that bugs me is that apparently since the introduction of correlation it seems nothing not "approved" can be said. In other words anything outside of the lesson materials etc. I realize this probably varies per ward, but I personally find it too constricting and controlled so I hear you there. However, I also see a need for a certain amount of control so that all kinds of wild doctrine and personal opinion do not get taught. That can be a hard line to draw. But mimicking robots regurgitating nothing but correlated materials doesn't seem to stimulate my personal growth either. Thankfully, that is changing for the better. Have you noticed a difference?

Quote

I repeatedly hear Saints talking about ministry lately, but most often in the context of gaining their way through the exaltation process. That always seems to slip out in the discussion. I have suggested to them that ministry is less than, when done for gain. The room gets quiet. And yes I don't believe the sacraments impart grace. They are indeed symbolic of grace. Just like footwashing is not done because the person's feet are dirty - for sure. In that case it is a sacrament more for the one doing the action than for the recipient. It is symbolic of humility; of servant leadership - not having to be the  first one to receive the sacrament; all other lesser folks must wait. Waiting for the "presiding officer" is indeed symbolic of Mormonism. The first shall be first!  Footwashing is on the other hand an amazing sacrament - done in remembrance of the time when Christ did it because the feet really were no kidding dirty. He cleansed their feet. Today that has no literal counterpart in our culture, so yes, it is symbolic, just as is baptism -- symbolic of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. When properly executed it is a powerful symbol for both the one committing the act and the recipient.

Amen. I think in Christ's day that footwashing was a symbol of servanthood. The master of the house in the rich quarters of the Levites would have the house servant wash his feet when he returned home. Yeshua was saying unless you are willing to humble yourself as such a servant like I am doing, you cannot follow me - or you can have no part with me. It was an palpable sign of servanthood. I so appreciate your words here!  And yes, you have baptism pegged too. It is a symbol of rising from the sea of the world and being changed - cleansed therefrom through living water - and rising in the resurrection of Christ. Right on, brother!

Quote

We have volunteers who show up at the chapel every Saturday morning to clean. We each take our turn. I am impressed that there is rarely a need on the part of the leaders to remind people to show up to clean. I like that. I love running the vacuum and looking at the beautiful paintings in the hallways - great vacuums by the way. It is quiet and I have a great sense of the benefit of the act I am committing. I find it one of the most spiritual experiences of the weekend - it is symbolic and it is much like the sacrament of foot-washing!

If my ward had foot-washing, I bet everyone would show up. Not so for cleaning day. I realize that can be physically difficult for some elderly. Actually, I think my ward is pretty good about it, but I don't think many see it like you do. I don't think I see it as spiritually as you do either. But, you are right that it is the humble things such as this that Christ looks on the heart. You are right about some things. I often hear "I do that because I want the blessings..." I do not clean out of expectation of any blessing. If I am blessed with a spiritual morning, then I will enjoy it. Nor do I tithe out of an expectation of blessings. In fact sometimes it seems to me I have been financially unblessed - yet, I have a comfortable home, and have never starved nor asked for Church welfare assistance. I have what I need it seems, and for that I am grateful. I tithe because I see it is necessary for the Church to be able to grow, and for the work of the gospel to proceed. This is the only Church where I have felt so impressed to do so on a complete and consistent basis. Sometimes doing things for the glory of our Heavenly Father and Savior or simply just to experience the joy of helping others is blessing enough for me, and to always expect some personal blessing just seems... disingenuous or unchristian. There are blessings attached to commandments and covenants, but sometimes we may not receive them... until heaven.

Thank you for your observations. I enjoy reading your posts. I wish I could say that about all visitors.

 

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Navidad said:

Ok I will get it. I like Given's works. I will simply say, the Indelible mark on the spirit must take a while to come into actuality. So far I have seen children being baptized who seem more concerned with the cookies - before and after! And yes, that is the same when sacraments are given to those too immature to understand in other faiths as well. So far all the kids I have seen have been within 5 days of turning 8. The parents are in a hurry regardless of the maturity of the child. It seems to me to be an action more for the parents than for the child. - this is not unique to the LDS faith. The process certainly is, in reality of a symbolic nature for them (the child). You might be saying there is a change they won't appreciate until later? A six year old certainly knows when he or she has done wrong, 8 years of age is certainly a symbolic age. I would tend to have more empathy for your approach if you waited for such a powerful sacrament until 24 - 30 years of age.

And I don't see how you leap from your Wikipedia quote to needing to have "authority." That is an LDS paradigm that seems to me to always leap out of apriori  belief; not the context of the point being made. You believe you have a unique authority; so therefore the action necessitates a unique authority. That is the essence of exceptionalism that stems from in-group differentiation. After a year, I am still waiting to observe some unique manifestation of that authority; not as in tongues or miracles, but in the sense of a quiet calm unique spirituality, a holiness, a passion, that is palpable on the part of the one with the authority, or a unique sense of God's presence. I have seen that in a handful of people over my life. It is palpable. One can sense it. Anyway, I will get the book - an early Christmas present!

I repeatedly hear Saints talking about ministry lately, but most often in the context of gaining their way through the exaltation process. That always seems to slip out in the discussion. I have suggested to them that ministry is less than, when done for gain. The room gets quiet. And yes I don't believe the sacraments impart grace. They are indeed symbolic of grace. Just like footwashing is not done because the person's feet are dirty - for sure. In that case it is a sacrament more for the one doing the action than for the recipient. It is symbolic of humility; of servant leadership - not having to be the  first one to receive the sacrament; all other lesser folks must wait. Waiting for the "presiding officer" is indeed symbolic of Mormonism. The first shall be first!  Footwashing is on the other hand an amazing sacrament - done in remembrance of the time when Christ did it because the feet really were no kidding dirty. He cleansed their feet. Today that has no literal counterpart in our culture, so yes, it is symbolic, just as is baptism -- symbolic of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. When properly executed it is a powerful symbol for both the one committing the act and the recipient. I prefer to see baptisms outdoors where there is some discomfort for both parties engaged in the sacrament. It makes the act come to life a bit more. In a sterile controlled environment like inside a nice chapel with just the right amount of water and a controlled environment; it is symbolic . . . and comfortable. It is early in the morning; I don't mean to be negative - but so far I am impressed and somewhat saddened that everything seems so controlled in the LDS faith. Everything.......   Constant reminders and lessons on tithing. Constant reminders and lessons on the need for the folks to do temple work. Boy, there is a lot of persuasion and reminding going on!  But, everything certainly is in order! Nothing messy about anything!

We have volunteers who show up at the chapel every Saturday morning to clean. We each take our turn. I am impressed that there is rarely a need on the part of the leaders to remind people to show up to clean. I like that. I love running the vacuum and looking at the beautiful paintings in the hallways - great vacuums by the way. It is quiet and I have a great sense of the benefit of the act I am committing. I find it one of the most spiritual experiences of the weekend - it is symbolic and it is much like the sacrament of foot-washing!

We have a basic misunderstanding here. I never said a blessing or ordinance causes a change in behavior. Nor did I mention Grace. And I have done baptisms in streams. I'm not seeing the relevance of that sort of thing here though.

We are lost in semantics as usual.

I made a one paragraph summary of 40 or 50 pages of Givens and I guess it didn't work.

"You believe you have a unique authority; so therefore the action necessitates a unique authority"

You believe you can be saved from sin because of a crucifixion 2000 years ago, and that belief necessitates the belief that such is possible somehow and actually happened.. Others disagree on that point.

It's all Alma 32.

Beliefs which are "sweet" and work for you and your life are deemed to be "true"

That's even why science works. It's beliefs make real changes concerning the subjects of their experiments. Experimental beliefs to make one comfortable with one's position in the universe function similarly.

Edited September 26, 2018 by mfbukowski
Too snarky as usual