Whistlers, Whittlers and on Being Called an Anti-Mormon – Mormon Exceptionalism from My Perspective

[Navidad]

This past week has been hard. After more than a year on this forum I have been called an anti-Mormon and the faithful have gathered because “I have been offensive, am only trying to debate, put down LDS beliefs and lift up my own to the detriment and demeaning of Mormon doctrine.” I have indicated this saddens me and discourages me very much. I am trying to be self-reflective about my posts and acknowledge my frustration has caused some less than kind posts from my keyboard. I admit that. I am sorry.

I also must admit that the tenor of the posts I have received reminds me of the infamous whistling and whittling brigades of Nauvoo. The faithful are calling me out. Maybe I need to move to Mexico to be safe . . . wait a minute I already live in Mexico. Hmmm. I have security cameras; maybe I should watch out for a long-haired dude in front of my house with an OPR stitching on his jacket!

I don’t want to hijack any other posts any longer, and I realize as of midnight last night that my use of the words Mormon Exceptionalism is being interpreted through the eyes and experiences of the reader. So I thought I would try to briefly summarize my meaning and intent. I know Latter-day Saints don’t like it when non-Saints tell them what they believe. I would appreciate the same courtesy. Let me tell you what I mean by it and then we can all let it go (hopefully). Feel free to read this thread or move on. I respect your agency.

Without wanting to go too far down the path, I want to emphasize that I don't use the term exceptionalism to refer to the Church or its member’s desire to receive guidance from the Holy Ghost as has been suggested. I applaud that and see it as a commonality among all Christian faiths. Logically, I also don't think it is exceptionalism if you believe God answers your prayers and supplications. We all covet that. I also don’t believe that if you think your faith is the “best” Christian faith, that is exceptionalism. If is a bit foreign to me, but I have no argument with it.

I will make it clear, however that I do not believe my faith; the Mennonite faith is the “best” however. It is one of the many good ones in which I happen to have been raised and whose tenets as an adult I appreciate. I am a Christian first, an evangelical second, a Mennonite third, and a dry Mormon fourth!

If I can boil it down to its most simple formula; I think my use of the term exceptionality in a concerned way about members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints refers to two things: 1. Believing you are the "only true" Church, or the only "Church with the truth," and 2. that the troubles that have followed you for years are a result of "innocent persecution."

The first is I believe unprecedented in current Christian polity - read that carefully and the second is a group dynamic that has become inculcated in the LDS psyche. The first is a slope that leads to a whole slew of offensive positions – I can only experience eternal life through LDS ordinances; I can only experience correct ordinances through the LDS Church; I cannot have the permanent indwelling of the Holy Ghost without LDS confirmation, I can only live with Heavenly Father for eternity via the Mormon proxy work. I know of no other Christian group that makes such claims of exclusivity – not for membership, but for salvation itself. That is a key distinction.

The theory of innocent persecution is a group construct that leads to a host of isolationist and “other” tendencies. It forms a group identity that is further distancing. It distances Saints from Protestants in ways that don’t have to be. It leads to denial and challenges the ability of Saints to self-analyze. I think is a barrier for the Church, especially in its interactions with non-members. It is not doctrine; it is a group construct, that might be able to be lessened.

These are my two concerns; not my two criticisms.

I acknowledge that I originally thought that you all might be interested in how you are perceived by other Christians, if for no other reason than to simply ponder a bit about it. But, I failed to understand the power of the two factors of this exceptionalism in the lives, hearts, and practice of the Saints. I was trying to offer insight as an evangelical Christian friend and that sure didn't work. Nothing like offering insight when it isn’t asked for, huh? Duh! What was I thinking? And yes, you do have evangelical Christian friends.

The culture and theology of the LDS Church contain a built-in protection from this kind of external perspective. First, you have on-going revelation which can occur at any time and be made part of the LDS canon. So you say, “God told Joseph Smith that the LDS Church is the only true and living church” so we can’t argue with what God told us. Case closed. Ok; you are at that point safe from the need of any self-reflection . . . what does the second half of that verse mean, what is the individual church to whom God is not speaking. . . what is the church collectively to whom He is speaking? What do true and living mean? What is the context? God said it; I believe it. Done. Maybe the church collectively is the Christian church? Just maybe? Why not?

Last night someone said, “History is irrelevant to Spiritual matters.” I must admit I couldn’t disagree with that more. I believe there is a very intricate thread between LDS history, its doctrine, culture and self-concept. They are inter-connected in inseparable ways. D&C 1 is very early in LDS history – 1832 in Ohio I believe.

At any rate, I have said enough. I hope none of this is offensive. I don’t mean it to be. It is my observation over almost 30 years of studying LDS history and less time examining its doctrine. I believe number 1 had a huge impact on number 2 in the early days of the Church and to this day. Saints and other Christians will face conflicts and challenges into the future. There are differences; I wish we could get past them and focus on similarities, but it takes both sides to want to do that. As long as both sides consider the other “the other” we will not get very far. I don’t really know how to break that down. I can write and speak to my fellow evangelicals. I have no ability to do the same to my LDS friends.

I am not an anti-Mormon. Years ago I read Hugh Nibley’s treatises on anti-Mormons and I cringed. Last night I read a post in which a member called me an Anti-Mormon and I cried! I have explained what I mean in a short and inadequate context. If what you think I mean is not in those two points, then it is not what I mean. It is only what you think I mean. I own my view and am accountable for that.

My testimony is that I believe many of my Mormon friends are my brothers in Christ. Not in the same way that you believe about me, but as my true Christian brothers in need of no doctrinal help from any other Christian. I have said in Sacrament testimony meeting that I believe the Mormon Church is one true and living branch on the true and living Christian tree. I thought the idea of an evangelical openly stating that might make you smile. I was wrong. You are a wonderful people. . . . kind of like we Mennonites – a peculiar people! Now, unless it comes in this thread, you all will hear no more about exceptionalism from me – at least not very much – just a little – ok none at all!

[The Nehor]

You are in luck. We are no longer Mormons so you cannot be an Anti-Mormon. Crisis averted.

[Navidad]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You are in luck. We are no longer Mormons so you cannot be an Anti-Mormon. Crisis averted.

I thought of that when writing my post. What will you now call anti-Mormons? That term has a long long history of being weaponized and ingrained in the LDS psyche.

[Jane_Doe]

Speaking my own thoughts here---

7 minutes ago, Navidad said:

This past week has been hard. After more than a year on this forum I have been called an anti-Mormon and the faithful have gathered because “I have been offensive, am only trying to debate, put down LDS beliefs and lift up my own to the detriment and demeaning of Mormon doctrine.” I have indicated this saddens me and discourages me very much. I am trying to be self-reflective about my posts and acknowledge my frustration has caused some less than kind posts from my keyboard. I admit that. I am sorry.

I have never found you to be anti- anything, or purposefully offensive, or down putting.   None of those terms apply to you.  While I appreciate the humility of the apology... in my mind I had no offense taken in the first place to be apologized for.

7 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Without wanting to go too far down the path, I want to emphasize that I don't use the term exceptionalism to refer to the Church or its member’s desire to receive guidance from the Holy Ghost as has been suggested. I applaud that and see it as a commonality among all Christian faiths. Logically, I also don't think it is exceptionalism if you believe God answers your prayers and supplications. We all covet that. I also don’t believe that if you think your faith is the “best” Christian faith, that is exceptionalism. If is a bit foreign to me, but I have no argument with it.

That's completely fair things to say.

7 minutes ago, Navidad said:

If I can boil it down to its most simple formula; I think my use of the term exceptionality in a concerned way about members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints refers to two things: 1. Believing you are the "only true" Church, or the only "Church with the truth," and 2. that the troubles that have followed you for years are a result of "innocent persecution."

For point #1: I find this to actually be the same thing as the 'ok' exemptionalism you described earlier.  I will respectfully disagree with you that this is  "unprecedented in current Christian polity".  I don't have a problem with any person/group believing that about their church, and take zero offense at the non-LDS several groups I know that believe just that.   I do 100% acknowledge and respect that you disagree with me in this regard.   I don't have to agree with someone to respect them and their opinions.  

Point #2: whenever any group is being attacked, they never perfectly 100% innocently just stand there and turn the other cheek 100% of the time.  That's just not human nature.  Now, can a group indeed be persecuted unjustly?  Of course.  But it's never simple pure black and white going on.  And whenever someone is attacked by another, it's always hard to re-build trust.

 I try with people-- to forgive those that  attack me, and to minimize any retaliation (and apologize when I do screw up that way).  But such is a uphill battle, especially when it feels like you're fighting it alone.  (Note: I'm not talking about historical 1800's stuff, but rather events in my own life in the 2000's).  

7 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I originally thought that you all might be interested in how you are perceived by other Christians

I like hearing it   I actually really like your posts.

7 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Last night someone said, “History is irrelevant to Spiritual matters.” I must admit I couldn’t disagree with that more. I believe there is a very intricate thread between LDS history, its doctrine, culture and self-concept. They are inter-connected in inseparable ways. D&C 1 is very early in LDS history – 1832 in Ohio I believe.

Thinking about this quote.... my reaction is "yes" and "no".  History certainly influences things powerfully, and it's important to understand it to understand the present people.  But we also frequently need to forgive the past and build a better future-- such forgiveness that is fueled by Christ.  

(Again, this applies to all groups of folks, not just LDS).

7 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Saints and other Christians will face conflicts and challenges into the future. There are differences; I wish we could get past them and focus on similarities, but it takes both sides to want to do that. As long as both sides consider the other “the other” we will not get very far. I don’t really know how to break that down. I can write and speak to my fellow evangelicals. I have no ability to do the same to my LDS friends.

How about be friendly, work together, and support each other while being 100% honest about who we are and who other people are?  Neither to up/downplay differences or similarities, but to just work shoulder to shoulder with folks, even if we don't agree on everything.

[Kevin Christensen]

On the formal definition of LDS authority and distinction, and the source of the common misreading despite the actual wording and explicit teaching about other faiths, try this essay, and read from the last paragraph of 131 to 140:

https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

[Storm Rider]

53 minutes ago, Navidad said:

This past week has been hard. After more than a year on this forum I have been called an anti-Mormon and the faithful have gathered because “I have been offensive, am only trying to debate, put down LDS beliefs and lift up my own to the detriment and demeaning of Mormon doctrine.” I have indicated this saddens me and discourages me very much. I am trying to be self-reflective about my posts and acknowledge my frustration has caused some less than kind posts from my keyboard. I admit that. I am sorry.

I also must admit that the tenor of the posts I have received reminds me of the infamous whistling and whittling brigades of Nauvoo. The faithful are calling me out. Maybe I need to move to Mexico to be safe . . . wait a minute I already live in Mexico. Hmmm. I have security cameras; maybe I should watch out for a long-haired dude in front of my house with an OPR stitching on his jacket!

........

The first is I believe unprecedented in current Christian polity - read that carefully and the second is a group dynamic that has become inculcated in the LDS psyche. The first is a slope that leads to a whole slew of offensive positions – I can only experience eternal life through LDS ordinances; I can only experience correct ordinances through the LDS Church; I cannot have the permanent indwelling of the Holy Ghost without LDS confirmation, I can only live with Heavenly Father for eternity via the Mormon proxy work. I know of no other Christian group that makes such claims of exclusivity – not for membership, but for salvation itself. That is a key distinction.

....... Maybe the church collectively is the Christian church? Just maybe? Why not?

My testimony is that I believe many of my Mormon friends are my brothers in Christ. Not in the same way that you believe about me, but as my true Christian brothers in need of no doctrinal help from any other Christian. I have said in Sacrament testimony meeting that I believe the Mormon Church is one true and living branch on the true and living Christian tree. I thought the idea of an evangelical openly stating that might make you smile. I was wrong. You are a wonderful people. . . . kind of like we Mennonites – a peculiar people! Now, unless it comes in this thread, you all will hear no more about exceptionalism from me – at least not very much – just a little – ok none at all!

 

1

I hope that you have understood how much I have appreciated your comments. Though I have not read everything you have written, I sense that you are very sincere and honest in your questions and statements and nothing you have said would make me think you are anti-Mormon. There is the Church itself as an organization and then there are individuals. The statements of an individual should be overlooked as try to overlook all things that may be painful, but are not personal. 

Nav, do you think the Catholic Church makes claims of exclusivity?  Though they do make allowances in certain areas, I am pretty convinced they think they have exclusive claims regarding rites or ordinances and their relationship to salvation. When addressing the Protestant position on exclusivity, it is much more complex due to the lack of any acknowledgment of priesthood. Without any formal priesthood then it is impossible to have much commitment to exclusivity. 

I do think there is ample support within Church scripture and doctrine to identify the Body of Christ broadly as all believers in Jesus Christ as Savior, Redeemer, and Lord. It is not simply members of the Church of Jesus Christ. When I call you my brother in Christ, it is in the same manner that I identify any brother Christian or Latter-day Saint. In my opinion, being a brother in Christ is not about membership in a church or the priesthood one holds, but in an individual's commitment to being a disciple of the Son of God.

Be not swayed by individuals and their perception of the gospel of Jesus Christ nor condemn another for your perceptions of what they may think of you or about you. Know that you are because you know Jesus Christ. 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

If I can boil it down to its most simple formula; I think my use of the term exceptionality in a concerned way about members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints refers to two things: 1. Believing you are the "only true" Church, or the only "Church with the truth," and 2. that the troubles that have followed you for years are a result of "innocent persecution."

The first is I believe unprecedented in current Christian polity - read that carefully and the second is a group dynamic that has become inculcated in the LDS psyche. The first is a slope that leads to a whole slew of offensive positions – I can only experience eternal life through LDS ordinances; I can only experience correct ordinances through the LDS Church; I cannot have the permanent indwelling of the Holy Ghost without LDS confirmation, I can only live with Heavenly Father for eternity via the Mormon proxy work. I know of no other Christian group that makes such claims of exclusivity – not for membership, but for salvation itself. That is a key distinction.

First, there is no such thing as a united and cohesive "Christian polity".

Second, all other Christian groups make claims of exclusivity in terms of salvation.  You previously mentioned 4 core doctrines that are required for salvation.  Do you mind sharing what those are?  I would submit that they are simply your own version of exclusivity - which is probably more exclusive then that of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ when considering humanity as a whole and not just "Christians" as a group (which we are excluded from by many of your fellow evangelicals). 

In fact, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is as close to Christian universalism as it gets, so who is being exclusive?  I still don't understand your beef.  I know you had a long reply vanish previously, I am still waiting for that reply. 

Edited October 8, 2018 by pogi

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

On the formal definition of LDS authority and distinction, and the source of the common misreading despite the actual wording and explicit teaching about other faiths, try this essay, and read from the last paragraph of 131 to 140:

https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Very good Kevin, thanks for sharing!

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

........................................You are a wonderful people. . . . kind of like we Mennonites – a peculiar people! Now, unless it comes in this thread, you all will hear no more about exceptionalism from me – at least not very much – just a little – ok none at all!

Mormons are by and large just ordinary people attempting to follow a powerfully heretical set of doctrines, which they do not see as heresy at all.  The Mormon Church is not just another Protestant denomination, but has more in common with Roman Catholicism (in sacramentalism and in exclusivity).  At the same time, Mormons are inclusive and universalist -- all mankind is included in the benefits of authoritative priesthood ordinances.  No one is left out in the cold, and the Mormon Church is the only True Church because it is the only Church authorized by God to be the Kingdom of God on Earth -- to function officially on his behalf.  We didn't seek that responsibility.  It was thrust upon us by God.  We have no choice in the matter.

I have met some Mennonites in various places along the way, and I like them all.  One was a Mennonite pastor leading a Methodist congregation.  I also met a couple of very sincere and bodacious young Mennonites who were members of an Israeli kibbutz they had formed (Nes Ammim).  Imagine that, a Mennonite kibbutz.  They discussed with me their relationship with the Amish, etc., and I appreciated their forthrightness.  I never discussed the LDS faith with them, knowing that a brief conversation would merely perplex them.  You too seem quite perplexed, and I can tell from your brief essay here, and comments in other threads that you don't understand the Mormon Church or the LDS faith.  Most Mormons don't.  For most of us, it is difficult enough just to follow the teachings of Jesus on a daily basis.

The denizens of this board are not a random sampling of Mormons or non-Mormons.  We are a unique group of oddballs seeking to figure out some of the factors entailed in being Mormon (even if Pres Nelson has advised us to cease using that word).  😎

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

On the formal definition of LDS authority and distinction, and the source of the common misreading despite the actual wording and explicit teaching about other faiths, try this essay, and read from the last paragraph of 131 to 140:

https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Whoever wrote that was a very smart guy! 

 

[Navidad]

5 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Speaking my own thoughts here---

I have never found you to be anti- anything, or purposefully offensive, or down putting.   None of those terms apply to you.  While I appreciate the humility of the apology... in my mind I had no offense taken in the first place to be apologized for.

That's completely fair things to say.

For point #1: I find this to actually be the same thing as the 'ok' exemptionalism you described earlier.  I will respectfully disagree with you that this is  "unprecedented in current Christian polity".  I don't have a problem with any person/group believing that about their church, and take zero offense at the non-LDS several groups I know that believe just that.   I do 100% acknowledge and respect that you disagree with me in this regard.   I don't have to agree with someone to respect them and their opinions.  

Point #2: whenever any group is being attacked, they never perfectly 100% innocently just stand there and turn the other cheek 100% of the time.  That's just not human nature.  Now, can a group indeed be persecuted unjustly?  Of course.  But it's never simple pure black and white going on.  And whenever someone is attacked by another, it's always hard to re-build trust.

 I try with people-- to forgive those that  attack me, and to minimize any retaliation (and apologize when I do screw up that way).  But such is a uphill battle, especially when it feels like you're fighting it alone.  (Note: I'm not talking about historical 1800's stuff, but rather events in my own life in the 2000's).  

I like hearing it   I actually really like your posts.

Thinking about this quote.... my reaction is "yes" and "no".  History certainly influences things powerfully, and it's important to understand it to understand the present people.  But we also frequently need to forgive the past and build a better future-- such forgiveness that is fueled by Christ.  

(Again, this applies to all groups of folks, not just LDS).

How about be friendly, work together, and support each other while being 100% honest about who we are and who other people are?  Neither to up/downplay differences or similarities, but to just work shoulder to shoulder with folks, even if we don't agree on everything.

Thanks so much for your careful response. We don't have to agree on everything. We need to work together for the best of people everywhere!

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I hope that you have understood how much I have appreciated your comments. Though I have not read everything you have written, I sense that you are very sincere and honest in your questions and statements and nothing you have said would make me think you are anti-Mormon. There is the Church itself as an organization and then there are individuals. The statements of an individual should be overlooked as try to overlook all things that may be painful, but are not personal. 

Nav, do you think the Catholic Church makes claims of exclusivity?  Though they do make allowances in certain areas, I am pretty convinced they think they have exclusive claims regarding rites or ordinances and their relationship to salvation. When addressing the Protestant position on exclusivity, it is much more complex due to the lack of any acknowledgment of priesthood. Without any formal priesthood then it is impossible to have much commitment to exclusivity. 

I do think there is ample support within Church scripture and doctrine to identify the Body of Christ broadly as all believers in Jesus Christ as Savior, Redeemer, and Lord. It is not simply members of the Church of Jesus Christ. When I call you my brother in Christ, it is in the same manner that I identify any brother Christian or Latter-day Saint. In my opinion, being a brother in Christ is not about membership in a church or the priesthood one holds, but in an individual's commitment to being a disciple of the Son of God.

Be not swayed by individuals and their perception of the gospel of Jesus Christ nor condemn another for your perceptions of what they may think of you or about you. Know that you are because you know Jesus Christ. 

I think the Catholic Church used to make claims of exclusivity, but not anymore. I live in a small village with a wonderful Catholic priest. He and I talk quite often. Catholics have given up the exclusivity; my hope is that the Saints can follow suit. I appreciate your kindness and your reply. Phil

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

First, there is no such thing as a united and cohesive "Christian polity".

Second, all other Christian groups make claims of exclusivity in terms of salvation.  You previously mentioned 4 core doctrines that are required for salvation.  Do you mind sharing what those are?  I would submit that they are simply your own version of exclusivity - which is probably more exclusive then that of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ when considering humanity as a whole and not just "Christians" as a group (which we are excluded from by many of your fellow evangelicals). 

In fact, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is as close to Christian universalism as it gets, so who is being exclusive?  I still don't understand your beef.  I know you had a long reply vanish previously, I am still waiting for that reply. 

In all sincerity, I think there is much more Christian unity or polity than you recognize. It is not true that "all other Christian groups make claims of exclusivity in terms of salvation. That simply is not true. The Saints are the only ones that I know of right now that hold to that. Please name the groups that make such exclusive claims, in addition to the Saints. It is also not true that the Saints are close to Christian universalism. You are being exclusive. All other Christians must come to eternal life via Mormon ordinances. That isn't universalism; it is exclusivity. Universalism would involve others coming to God via their own search, thirst and process. Yours' requires conformity and agreement with LDS ordinances. That isn't universalism; it is exclusivity to a degree not known in other Christian groups. The other 99.5% of Christians have no hope of eternal life with Heavenly Ffather except by acceptance of your ordinances. You completely reject the efficacy of ours. That is exclusivity!

[Navidad]

5 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I hope that you have understood how much I have appreciated your comments. Though I have not read everything you have written, I sense that you are very sincere and honest in your questions and statements and nothing you have said would make me think you are anti-Mormon. There is the Church itself as an organization and then there are individuals. The statements of an individual should be overlooked as try to overlook all things that may be painful, but are not personal. 

Nav, do you think the Catholic Church makes claims of exclusivity?  Though they do make allowances in certain areas, I am pretty convinced they think they have exclusive claims regarding rites or ordinances and their relationship to salvation. When addressing the Protestant position on exclusivity, it is much more complex due to the lack of any acknowledgment of priesthood. Without any formal priesthood then it is impossible to have much commitment to exclusivity. 

I do think there is ample support within Church scripture and doctrine to identify the Body of Christ broadly as all believers in Jesus Christ as Savior, Redeemer, and Lord. It is not simply members of the Church of Jesus Christ. When I call you my brother in Christ, it is in the same manner that I identify any brother Christian or Latter-day Saint. In my opinion, being a brother in Christ is not about membership in a church or the priesthood one holds, but in an individual's commitment to being a disciple of the Son of God.

Be not swayed by individuals and their perception of the gospel of Jesus Christ nor condemn another for your perceptions of what they may think of you or about you. Know that you are because you know Jesus Christ. 

 

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Mormons are by and large just ordinary people attempting to follow a powerfully heretical set of doctrines, which they do not see as heresy at all.  The Mormon Church is not just another Protestant denomination, but has more in common with Roman Catholicism (in sacramentalism and in exclusivity).  At the same time, Mormons are inclusive and universalist -- all mankind is included in the benefits of authoritative priesthood ordinances.  No one is left out in the cold, and the Mormon Church is the only True Church because it is the only Church authorized by God to be the Kingdom of God on Earth -- to function officially on his behalf.  We didn't seek that responsibility.  It was thrust upon us by God.  We have no choice in the matter.

I have met some Mennonites in various places along the way, and I like them all.  One was a Mennonite pastor leading a Methodist congregation.  I also met a couple of very sincere and bodacious young Mennonites who were members of an Israeli kibbutz they had formed (Nes Ammim).  Imagine that, a Mennonite kibbutz.  They discussed with me their relationship with the Amish, etc., and I appreciated their forthrightness.  I never discussed the LDS faith with them, knowing that a brief conversation would merely perplex them.  You too seem quite perplexed, and I can tell from your brief essay here, and comments in other threads that you don't understand the Mormon Church or the LDS faith.  Most Mormons don't.  For most of us, it is difficult enough just to follow the teachings of Jesus on a daily basis.

The denizens of this board are not a random sampling of Mormons or non-Mormons.  We are a unique group of oddballs seeking to figure out some of the factors entailed in being Mormon (even if Pres Nelson has advised us to cease using that word).  😎

Mormons are not "inclusive and universalist" that is far from accurate. You are exclusive and proprietary. We all must come to the Father via your ordinances and your authority. That is the most exclusive Christian group of which I am aware.  Saying if you accept our ordinances you will be ok, doesn't make you inclusive or universalist. It simply makes you the exclusive arbiter of exclusive truth. I am amazed you can't own up to that.  You are welcome to say if you want to join our church you must do this or that. You are alone in saying you must do it our way to get to heaven. Please name other Christian denominations who believe the same.

[Navidad]

If I may....several of you have tried to make the point that Mormonism is universalist in its approach therefore it is not exclusivistic. I am quoting from the faith of a true universalist faith - the Unitarian Universalist Church. They hold to the following (from their website):

“The Principles are not dogma or doctrine, but rather a guide for those of us who choose to join and participate in Unitarian Universalist religious communities.”

1. 1st Principle: The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
2. 2nd Principle: Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
3. 3rd Principle: Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
4. 4th Principle: A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
5. 5th Principle: The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
6. 6th Principle: The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
7. 7th Principle: Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

The six sources of their universalism are as follows:

• Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;
• Words and deeds of prophetic people which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love;
• Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;
• Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;
• Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit;
• Spiritual teachings of Earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.

They are true universalists, eclectic in their beliefs, requiring no one group's correctness for their eternal security. Universalism is completely different than what Mormons teach. You are not a universalist group or you wouldn't require your priesthood authority and your ordinances for eternal life. Their creed is loyalty to forces, love, wisdom, teachings. sacred circles,  and earth--centered traditions - a far cry from a belief in the atonement of Christ. The Saints will offer eternal life to all, but in contrast to universalists, only via their own specific ordinances and covenants. You are more like a proprietary computer company. - Oh yes, we make computers for everyone, but by the way the computer only runs with our proprietary chip installed. Otherwise you get the dreaded blue screen when you try and use someone elses' memory or cpu.  It is proprietary and exclusivistic. I really don't want to argue this; but almost all of you have brought up an "inclusive and universalist" perspective that just doesn't seem to match reality. If you are truly universalist, I can get to eternal life my way and you can via your way. In your system, it is all your way or no way. And please.........don't tell me I don't understand your way. Either you believe the way to eternal life with the Father is via your ordinances and priesthood or you don't and it isn't. Which is it?

Edited October 9, 2018 by Navidad

[Storm Rider]

51 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Mormons are not "inclusive and universalist" that is far from accurate. You are exclusive and proprietary. We all must come to the Father via your ordinances and your authority. That is the most exclusive Christian group of which I am aware.  Saying if you accept our ordinances you will be ok, doesn't make you inclusive or universalist. It simply makes you the exclusive arbiter of exclusive truth. I am amazed you can't own up to that.  You are welcome to say if you want to join our church you must do this or that. You are alone in saying you must do it our way to get to heaven. Please name other Christian denominations who believe the same.

 

Nav, you state that the Church's teachings are exclusive and proprietary due to the requirement of its salvific ordinances and its claim to priesthood authority. However, on the other hand, not a single human or child of God will be denied those ordinances or the use of its priesthood. So, in reality, everyone will receive it and have the opportunity to either accept those ordinances or reject them. It is an exclusivity without borders such that it is completely and totally inclusive.

Let's look at it another way. We believe that salvation comes in and through Jesus Christ - there is one Lord and there is no other way to enter heaven except through him. Based on your definition, Christianity is exclusive and completely so. Is this form of exclusivity acceptable to you or is there a problem?

The Church teaches that Jesus is the one and only Redeemer; he is our Savior, Lord, and Master. We acknowledge he is the exclusive path to return to heaven. We also acknowledge that Jesus taught that there are certain ordinances or rites that are required to enter heaven - baptism being one of them. We would teach that the baptism of fire is the confirmation of the Holy Spirit received shortly after baptism is another.

I understand this concept of salvific ordinances is a problem, in general, for Evangelicals and Protestants. However, the vast majority of Christians support this position and teach it. If these ordinances or rites are actually required, then the Church is the sole church that teaches that all will receive those same ordinances - none will be denied. In the same way that I believe every child of God will have the opportunity to receive Jesus Christ, I believe they will receive the saving ordinances. It will always remain their choice to receive or reject them; not one will be forced to heaven. 

I don't see any difference between the exclusivity of Jesus and the exclusivity of saving ordinances - when all will have the choice, where is the exclusivity?

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I think the Catholic Church used to make claims of exclusivity, but not anymore. I live in a small village with a wonderful Catholic priest. He and I talk quite often. Catholics have given up the exclusivity; my hope is that the Saints can follow suit. I appreciate your kindness and your reply. Phil

Phil, I don't think the Catholic Church's claims to exclusivity are completely abandoned. Being one of those whose baptism is not recognized even though it meets the strict method/form they teach - being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost - they continue to draw some pretty definite lines. 

However, I do agree that they now will accept - not recommend - but accept the baptisms of other churches IF they deem it meets their form and if there is a Creedal agreement on specific beliefs. 

Like you, I have several dear friends who are Catholic priests and I miss their comradery being separated by long distances. I hope you will find that I am a student of religion and Catholicism in particular. I just finished reading, "Noble Beauty, Transcendent Holiness" by Peter Kwasniewski. It discusses the theological and ritual meaning of the traditional Latin Mass while juxtaposing it against the Novus Ordo Missae, the new Mass instituted since Vatican II. I follow the admonition of Brigham - to seek out all truth and claim it as my own regardless of where it is found. As an aside, I also study Islam. Cheers and blessings be upon you. 

[pogi]

11 hours ago, Navidad said:

In all sincerity, I think there is much more Christian unity or polity than you recognize. It is not true that "all other Christian groups make claims of exclusivity in terms of salvation. That simply is not true. The Saints are the only ones that I know of right now that hold to that. Please name the groups that make such exclusive claims, in addition to the Saints. It is also not true that the Saints are close to Christian universalism. You are being exclusive. All other Christians must come to eternal life via Mormon ordinances. That isn't universalism; it is exclusivity. Universalism would involve others coming to God via their own search, thirst and process. Yours' requires conformity and agreement with LDS ordinances. That isn't universalism; it is exclusivity to a degree not known in other Christian groups. The other 99.5% of Christians have no hope of eternal life with Heavenly Ffather except by acceptance of your ordinances. You completely reject the efficacy of ours. That is exclusivity!

You have asked me to name groups that make exclusive claims.  If you will please share with me your 4 core doctrines required for salvation, I will show you 1 group (or individual, at least) that makes exclusive claims to salvation (unless you are a true universalist).

You seem hesitant to share them.  Why is that?  I have asked several times now.  Isn’t it only fair that we understand each other’s truth claims in order to compare the two.  You seem to think your truth claims are not exclusive, well, I am asking you to prove it.  Let’s see which paradigm allows more children of God (not just Christians) salvation.

Now if you are talking about “exaltation”, I don’t deny that exaltation is exclusive.  Why should we think it would be otherwise?  Christ is an exclusionist - hence his title as Final Judge.  If exaltation was not exclusive, why the need for a final judge? 

Edited October 9, 2018 by pogi

[Storm Rider]

40 minutes ago, Navidad said:

If I may....several of you have tried to make the point that Mormonism is universalist in its approach therefore it is not exclusivistic. I am quoting from the faith of a true universalist faith - the Unitarian Universalist Church. They hold to the following (from their website):

“The Principles are not dogma or doctrine, but rather a guide for those of us who choose to join and participate in Unitarian Universalist religious communities.”

1. 1st Principle: The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
2. 2nd Principle: Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
3. 3rd Principle: Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
4. 4th Principle: A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
5. 5th Principle: The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
6. 6th Principle: The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
7. 7th Principle: Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

The six sources of their universalism are as follows:

• Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;
• Words and deeds of prophetic people which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love;
• Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;
• Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;
• Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit;
• Spiritual teachings of Earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.

They are true universalists, eclectic in their beliefs, requiring no one group's correctness for their eternal security. Universalism is completely different than what Mormons teach. You are not a universalist group or you wouldn't require your priesthood authority and your ordinances for eternal life. Their creed is loyalty to forces, love, wisdom, teachings  and earth--centered traditions - a far cry from a belief in the atonement of Christ. The Saints will offer eternal life to all, but in contrast to universalists, only via their own specific ordinances and covenants.

This is the universalism that has no truth because all is truth. There are no boundaries because there is no doctrine; doctrine confines and restricts. There are teachings, but there is no salvation - it is a dead husk of pretty words and good intentions that lead to nowhere. When truth is everything then truth is nothing. 

I think there is a conflict here of words and this is causing the confusion. We absolutely teach that there is objective truth in the world regardless of it being believed or taught. God the Father, his Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are real; through them, we are enabled to do all things. This would go on for pages and pages; for the sake of brevity, I will stop here on the meaning and purpose of the Godhead. Given that we acknowledge truth we also recognize falsehoods, untruths, etc. When we say that we are universalists, we mean that nothing will be lost to a single child of God due to a lack of exposure to the truth of Jesus Christ and his gospel or a lack of receiving ordinances during their mortal life. Every soul will be left to simply choose to either follow Christ or not. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

In all sincerity, I think there is much more Christian unity or polity than you recognize. It is not true that "all other Christian groups make claims of exclusivity in terms of salvation. That simply is not true. The Saints are the only ones that I know of right now that hold to that. Please name the groups that make such exclusive claims, in addition to the Saints. It is also not true that the Saints are close to Christian universalism. You are being exclusive. All other Christians must come to eternal life via Mormon ordinances. That isn't universalism; it is exclusivity. Universalism would involve others coming to God via their own search, thirst and process. Yours' requires conformity and agreement with LDS ordinances. That isn't universalism; it is exclusivity to a degree not known in other Christian groups. The other 99.5% of Christians have no hope of eternal life with Heavenly Ffather except by acceptance of your ordinances. You completely reject the efficacy of ours. That is exclusivity!

You should have heard the talks in Conference which affirmed virtual universalism.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

If I may....several of you have tried to make the point that Mormonism is universalist in its approach therefore it is not exclusivistic. I am quoting from the faith of a true universalist faith - the Unitarian Universalist Church. They hold to the following (from their website):

“The Principles are not dogma or doctrine, but rather a guide for those of us who choose to join and participate in Unitarian Universalist religious communities.”

1. 1st Principle: The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
2. 2nd Principle: Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
3. 3rd Principle: Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
4. 4th Principle: A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
5. 5th Principle: The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
6. 6th Principle: The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
7. 7th Principle: Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

The six sources of their universalism are as follows:

• Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;
• Words and deeds of prophetic people which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love;
• Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;
• Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;
• Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit;
• Spiritual teachings of Earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.

They are true universalists, eclectic in their beliefs, requiring no one group's correctness for their eternal security. Universalism is completely different than what Mormons teach. You are not a universalist group or you wouldn't require your priesthood authority and your ordinances for eternal life. Their creed is loyalty to forces, love, wisdom, teachings. sacred circles,  and earth--centered traditions - a far cry from a belief in the atonement of Christ. The Saints will offer eternal life to all, but in contrast to universalists, only via their own specific ordinances and covenants. You are more like a proprietary computer company. - Oh yes, we make computers for everyone, but by the way the computer only runs with our proprietary chip installed. Otherwise you get the dreaded blue screen when you try and use someone elses' memory or cpu.  It is proprietary and exclusivistic. I really don't want to argue this; but almost all of you have brought up an "inclusive and universalist" perspective that just doesn't seem to match reality. If you are truly universalist, I can get to eternal life my way and you can via your way. In your system, it is all your way or no way. And please.........don't tell me I don't understand your way. Either you believe the way to eternal life with the Father is via your ordinances and priesthood or you don't and it isn't. Which is it?

Special pleading based on your own definitions essentially begging the question from the beginning.

"This is what universalism means: xyz.  You believe universalism means abc therefore you are not universalists"

Quibbling over words.  Not open to the spirit of the meaning of the word.  Universal salvation is universal salvation.  We all return to our Father and have eternal life.

Everything else is irrelevant.  He loves us all as his children and wants us all to be like Him.  It's a distinction without a difference in the long run.  Perhaps we do disagree genuinely about mechanisms but in the long run we still all have Eternal life with our Father.

It doesn't help your case that you do not answer questions like this one- it appears you just keep asserting your position of anti-exclusivity and do not respond to objections.

Edited October 9, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

35 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

We absolutely teach that there is objective truth in the world regardless of it being believed or taught. 

And so what is a "truth" that is unknowable that no one has ever believed it or taught it?

What does that mean?

What good is it?

[Jane_Doe]

16 hours ago, Navidad said:

In all sincerity, I think there is much more Christian unity or polity than you recognize. It is not true that "all other Christian groups make claims of exclusivity in terms of salvation. That simply is not true. The Saints are the only ones that I know of right now that hold to that. Please name the groups that make such exclusive claims, in addition to the Saints. 

All Christians make some claim at exclusivity -- "No man come unto the Father but by me", after all.  What matters is how small/big each group draws that tent. 

Just for one close-to-home example from my life--

My Evangelical MIL actively believes I am going to Hell, and leading her son and grandchildren down that path (her words there, not mine).  She does not acknowledge my relationship with Christ, and every time she's alone with my husband she tells him "you need to be a real man and make your wife a Christian!".  This behavior has really strained our relationships with her.

Meanwhile, I have zero problem with her Evangelical faith.  I'm happy to hear about what's going on at church with her, happy to attend there with her when we're in her city, and even happy to honor her request and attend Evangelical church when she visits in my city (meanwhile she refuses to ever step foot into my church).  I happily acknowledge her relationship with Christ, and make zero efforts to try to convert her.  I also make zero efforts to convert my husband to join the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I happily celebrate my husband's CC baptism as being one of the most influential positive turning points in his life (and by extension mine).  

Have I been perfect here?  No, I have admittedly used sharp words out of frustration- apologized for it promptly, but it did happen.  

Do I think all Evangelicals are like my MIL?  No, of course they aren't.  Which I know because I go out of my way to get to know many people of many different faiths (which of course my MIL disapproves of).  

 

Now, turning back to @Navidad-- from our previous conversations, I'm guessing you're reaction to this will be "she is a fundamentalist, most Christians aren't like that".  I know many Christians aren't like that.  But it doesn't negate the hard times my husband and I go through every time we see her-- this is indeed an active source of pain in both our lives.  Yes, we both forgive, over and over again, but that doesn't mean it doesn't hurt the next time things happen.  

 

Edited October 9, 2018 by Jane_Doe
Better reflect things

[RevTestament]

12 minutes ago, Navidad said:

 

Mormons are not "inclusive and universalist" that is far from accurate. You are exclusive and proprietary. We all must come to the Father via your ordinances and your authority. That is the most exclusive Christian group of which I am aware.  Saying if you accept our ordinances you will be ok, doesn't make you inclusive or universalist. It simply makes you the exclusive arbiter of exclusive truth. I am amazed you can't own up to that.  You are welcome to say if you want to join our church you must do this or that. You are alone in saying you must do it our way to get to heaven. Please name other Christian denominations who believe the same.

The fault in your reasoning is that you are thinking in temporal terms. They are not "our ordinances" nor our covenants. They are the Lord's. You are standing outside saying they are not - we are taught that they do represent actual covenants with the Lord. Do you know what any covenants would be like with the Lord outside of what the Bible says? And the Churches can't even agree on those. In the days of the early Jews we know they had specific covenants they made - the Nazarites, etc. Circumcision was a token of an even earlier one. These Christians which you say are all the same don't even agree about baptism - one of the most fundamental tokens of a Christian commitment and covenant. Should I accept the now common belief that baptism is not necessary or desirable? If I believe it is does that make me some kind of exceptionalist? That is the distinction you are really trying to draw, and I just don't agree with it. Do you really believe it is offensive to believe in the importance of baptism to receive eternal life? Do Mennonites believe that? Do Baptists believe that? Is it offensive to believe that our Lord taught and authorized His apostles to baptize and ordain bishops of wards? or that He chose other seventy? If so, maybe Christians have just become offended by the truth.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

Mormons are not "inclusive and universalist" that is far from accurate. You are exclusive and proprietary. We all must come to the Father via your ordinances and your authority. That is the most exclusive Christian group of which I am aware.  Saying if you accept our ordinances you will be ok, doesn't make you inclusive or universalist. It simply makes you the exclusive arbiter of exclusive truth. I am amazed you can't own up to that.  You are welcome to say if you want to join our church you must do this or that. You are alone in saying you must do it our way to get to heaven.

A lot of poorly informed people consider Mormonism "exclusive and proprietary," conveniently forgetting that Mormons actively preach the inclusive and universalist value of the infinite atonement of Jesus Christ -- to all mankind, without exception.  All are raised to life eternal, regardless of their religious belief status.  All are to be resurrected,  the price of their sins already paid.  That includes you, even though you reject the Atonement.  You speak as though the Atonement is owned by Mormons and not by Jesus.  None of the ordinances of God are owned by Mormons.  Those sacramental ordinances are in the Bible and have been practiced by God's authorized priesthood since the beginning of time.  Even the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II was done according to many of those sacramental ordinances, which I witnessed on live television a lifetime ago, and which have been reenacted in a recent BBC series.  You don't recognize them simply because you are unfamiliar with them.  You might want to consider taking several college courses in theology (non-Mormon theology).  That would greatly help you understand what I am saying.

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

Please name other Christian denominations who believe the same.

Ever heard of the Roman Catholic Church?  They claim to have the only divine authority on behalf of God, the only authentic priesthood (of Melchizedek) to function in His name.  Protestantism is a rebellion against that very notion, emphasizing the priesthood of the believer, and the supremacy of Holy Writ (sola scriptura).  While there is some ecumenism within the Protestant movement, it generally excludes those who do not have "correct" beliefs -- such as the Westminster Confession of faith.  Indeed, the only inclusive and universalist aspect to Protestantism is the Unitarian Universalist movement.  Of course, Roman Catholic and Protestant churches actively exclude the Mormons from the saving grace of Jesus.  For them, Mormonism is a hated, heretical cult.  A bunch of sheepstealers.

On the contrary, Mormons take the Great Commission of Jesus seriously -- to preach the Gospel to all mankind.  You can read that Great Commission in the NT.  Do you have any idea what I am even talking about?