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

[Storm Rider]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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?

Mfb, I don't believe there is truth that is unknowable. However, I think that there are eternal truths that you or I or anyone else does not know yet. For something to be true, there is no requirement for it to be believed by every person. For example, I am sure there are still people in the world that have never heard of Jesus Christ, his gospel, and his importance to the world. The fact that such individuals exist does not negate the reality that Jesus is the Christ. 

[Navidad]

I thank you each for your replies to my post. I see how very difficult it is to communicate about these types of things when we speak a common language that is divided by the meaning of words. I have several thoughts:

1. I hope we can have a productive and interesting discussion without offending anyone. That is not my intent and I am sure it is not yours.

2. I hope we can seek to understand each other without an interpreter. Some of you speak some evangelical; I speak a bit of LDS-ese. So I hope we can effectively communicate.

3. I want to assure all of you that I speak only for myself; my words come from my observations, experience, and study of LDS history. I am one evangelical who has had some unique experiences out of which I have formed both questions and conclusions. I don’t ask any of you to agree with anything I write.

4. Everything I write; I write as a friend of the Saints.

5. I know you won’t see things as I see them. We probably each have some blind spots from loyalties, faith, beliefs, and experiences. Some of you have related negative experiences with Protestants or evangelicals. I have had negative experiences with Saints. I hope those don’t color our conversation. We can never be sure that our experiences are any more than that and are not normative. I am sorry for each negative experience you have had.

6. One or more of you have already expressed serious doubts about my knowledge of this or not. That is most likely my failure; not yours and I don't take it as a criticism. Let me simply say I grew up in an evangelical home, my father was a well-known Bible teacher and theologian who authored over twenty books on Biblical and theological studies. I have met most of the well-known evangelical scholars and Bible teachers. I majored in Biblical studies and theology in an evangelical university, had 7 years of Greek studies, four years of graduate education in religious and theological studies, and was an assistant and then associate professor of psychology and theology and taught homiletics to prospective evangelical pastors. I was the dean of students at an evangelical college and the director of a Mennonite K-12 school. I have authored five books and a number of articles. I have spoken on matters of faith in 9 countries, 28 states, in over 30 different denominations and to as many as 6,000 people at once. I have spoken at LDS firesides, sacrament services, at MHA conferences, and published in the MHA journal. I have met and chatted with several general authorities of the Church; I have been asked to pray at large MHA gatherings and just a few months ago the Managing Director of the Church History Department told me in front of my ward bishop that I understood the LDS mindset better than any non-Mormon - Mormon historian he had ever met. I will let you draw your own conclusions on my long life.

I am now retired, living near the LDS Mexican colonies and have committed the last year to a more practical and personal exploration of Mormonism by faithfully attending, contributing to, and enjoying the fellowship of a historic ward in the colonies. I only hope that provides you a window into my commitment to understanding things LDS. I am the husband of one wife for 48 years and have one son who lives with us here in Mexico. I grow pecans, raise cattle, and write books. I have two new books that will be for sale in a week or so on the history of religion in Mexico. I have over 300 books by Mormon authors on Mormon history and doctrine in my library. I have no books (not one) in my library on Mormon studies by non-Mormons (as far as I know – I have always wondered if Will Bagley is a Mormon in good standing so he might be an exception). I am both an ordained and licensed minister in the Baptist and Mennonite church respectively. I was baptized by immersion with covenants and had the laying on of hands to specific ministries twice in my life. I believe I am indwelt by the Holy Spirit without having had the benefit of the laying on of hands by LDS priesthood holders. My journey into understanding Mormonism has cost me the good will of family members. I am sure some of you can relate to that. I hope it makes you sensitive to my sensitivity at times. When they are upset with me and you are upset with me, it can add up to a bit of stress.

I just ask you to believe me when I say I am sincere. The last thing I would say is that in every one of Stephen Robinson’s books I have read he complained about evangelicals or Protestants telling him what Mormons believe. I feel the same way when you all tell me what Protestants or Evangelicals believe. You never say “some” or “one I met,” not even “many.” I ask you please to ask me what we believe. The fact that your neighbor ten years ago said this or that doesn’t represent anything more than his or her viewpoint. I am speaking for myself as well; however if you want, I can tell you what the majority Evangelical perspective is on many theological issues, including that of Mormonism. This is much too long. I will post it now and continue in a second post.

[Jane_Doe]

5 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I just ask you to believe me when I say I am sincere. The last thing I would say is that in every one of Stephen Robinson’s books I have read he complained about evangelicals or Protestants telling him what Mormons believe. I feel the same way when you all tell me what Protestants or Evangelicals believe. You never say “some” or “one I met,” not even “many.”

Did I not just acknowledge that diversity in my post earlier this thread?

13 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

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!".  

.....

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.  

If my acknowledgment of this diversity isn't conveying, please let me know, so that I can find better words to make it convey better.

Edited October 9, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[HappyJackWagon]

The great news is that the "faithful" can no longer call you anti-"Mormon" because if they do they will be offending God and giving Satan a victory, thus making them an anti-"Mormon". Wait...crap...uh...

[Navidad]

26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The great news is that the "faithful" can no longer call you anti-"Mormon" because if they do they will be offending God and giving Satan a victory, thus making them an anti-"Mormon". Wait...crap...uh...

That was a good one! I like that!

[Navidad]

46 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Did I not just acknowledge that diversity in my post earlier this thread?

If my acknowledgment of this diversity isn't conveying, please let me know, so that I can find better words to make it convey better.

Thanks Jane. You have both acknowledged and demonstrated diversity and sensitivity. I am sorry for how you are treated. You are a kind and loving example of a Christian woman. Thanks for that.

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I just ask you to believe me when I say I am sincere. 

Thanks Navidad for sharing.  I enjoy your posts.  I sense your sincerity.  I have never met a friendlier evangelical who has committed and invested so much of his personal life to understanding our beliefs and culture in a respectful way. So, thank you for that!

Maybe we are speaking past each other with our different versions of salvation/exaltation, and maybe our own religious filters/bias prevent us from fully perceiving and understanding how the other's perceive themselves, but one thing I simply don't understand is the accusation that we are any more exclusionary than you or any other non-universalist Christian faith.  Unless you are a pure universalist, how are you not also an exclusionist?  It seems to me that you are either one or the other.  How are your 4 core doctrines that are required for salvation not exclusionary?  

Edited October 9, 2018 by pogi

[Jane_Doe]

16 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thanks Jane. You have both acknowledged and demonstrated diversity and sensitivity. I am sorry for how you are treated. You are a kind and loving example of a Christian woman. Thanks for that.

 

Ok.  Acknowledging diversity & respect are both a HUGE deal for me, and I was worried that it was not conveying.  Thanks for letting me know it is conveying.

Edited October 9, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[JAHS]

On 10/8/2018 at 12:47 PM, Navidad said:

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.

Well according to President Nelson maybe we should call anti-Mormons ..... Mormons. 

[Navidad]

This post will be a bit more on the subject at hand. As I have said before, in the taxonomy of faith I consider myself a Christian (one of you said in a reply that I don’t believe in the atonement; not sure where that came from?), a distant second, I am an evangelical, and a more distant third I am Mennonite. I view Saints as Christians first and Saints second with perhaps no similar category to evangelical. I believe The Mennonite Church USA and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are equal branches on the tree of Christianity and at the same level on the faith taxonomy. They are both sects, denominations, or groups (pick your word)  within Christianity – One of you I know likes the term LDS Christians. I like that too.

One of you has asked me several times what I think is necessary for one to be a Christian. My answer to that question is not going to include what it takes to be a Mennonite, a Mormon, or to go to heaven to dwell with Heavenly Father for eternity. That is important. Those questions require different answers. To be a Christian one must believe that God exists in a Godhead that includes a Heavenly Father, a Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. One must believe that the Father sent the Son to earth to redeem humankind through his voluntary sufferings, death and literal resurrection. One must accept the atonement that Christ offered when He put himself on the cross, repent (turn around), and accept the grace of God offered in that sacrificial atonement. Then one can be called a follower (disciple) of Christ – what we call a Christian. So Pogi, my friend, there is my answer about necessary beliefs. I believe that for someone to be a Christian he or she must believe those beliefs. If it isn’t in that list I don’t believe it is essential for being called a Christian.

I  then separately, believe that becoming a Christian is a point in time experience in a Greek aorist sense. It then may or may not result in a life of learning to become more like Christ. I call that sanctification. It is an ongoing continual change and growth that I believe continues into the after-life. Not all Christians commit to that or work at it. What we call salvation is the first aorist point experience; what you call salvation (I think) is the initial experience and the sanctification part wrapped up in one concept and it also continues into the afterlife. We use the term salvation differently. That is ok. I have never heard the term sanctification used in our ward in the year I have been attending. However, when I use it, the folks seem to know what I mean. I don’t know if I have said anything about the beliefs necessary to be a Christian that Mormons don’t believe?

Now the actions (as distinct from beliefs) that one must follow to be a Christian are where many Christians might divert to different paths. I get conflicting answers from Mormons as to whether or not I am a Christian since I haven’t been baptized by an LDS priesthood holder and also haven’t had a confirmation service immediately thereafter. I disagree, but that is ok with me because I also disagree on those kinds of points with many Christian groups, including Catholics, many reformed groups, others who practice baptismal regeneration, etc. I may disagree with them on this or that point, but I still call them Christians. Hence, I am free to also call Mormons Christians because as far as I have come to know they believe all of the points I outlined above to be a Christian. We are still at the Christian level of discussion.

More and more Protestants and evangelicals are coming to accept Saints as Christians; I get very mixed messages from my Mormon friends as to whether they accept non-Mormons as Christians. My experience in our ward has been that I am called Brother Phil in the context of the 1978 Presidency statement about other Christians and inter-faith work. I am Brother Phil because we were brothers and sisters in the pre-mortal world as spirit children of the same heavenly parents. That is where language gets tricky. I think my ward friends mean I am a brother with Christ; not necessarily a brother in Christ. That is not a distinction without a difference and we may be moving incrementally closer to what I can exceptionalism.

[Navidad]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

Thanks Navidad for sharing.  I enjoy your posts.  I sense your sincerity.  I have never met a friendlier evangelical who has committed and invested so much of his personal life to understanding our beliefs and culture in a respectful way. So, thank you for that!

Maybe we are speaking past each other with our different versions of salvation/exaltation, and maybe our own religious filters/bias prevent us from fully perceiving and understanding how the other's perceive themselves, but one thing I simply don't understand is the accusation that we are any more exclusionary than you or any other non-universalist Christian faith.  Unless you are a pure universalist, how are you not also an exclusionist?  It seems to me that you are either one or the other.  How are your 4 core doctrines that are required for salvation not exclusionary?  

Thanks so much for the kind comments and I am getting there. I just posted another missive!

[Jane_Doe]

6 minutes ago, Navidad said:

This post will be a bit more on the subject at hand. As I have said before, in the taxonomy of faith I consider myself a Christian (one of you said in a reply that I don’t believe in the atonement; not sure where that came from?), a distant second, I am an evangelical, and a more distant third I am Mennonite. I view Saints as Christians first and Saints second with perhaps no similar category to evangelical. I believe The Mennonite Church USA and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are equal branches on the tree of Christianity and at the same level on the faith taxonomy. They are both sects, denominations, or groups (pick your word)  within Christianity – One of you I know likes the term LDS Christians. I like that too.

I have used such an explanation scheme myself many times-- traditional wording of I'm a Christian of the LDS variety.  My husband is a Christian of the non-denominational variety.  I have friends of many different Christian varieties.

Now, do I consider these varieties to all be equal?  No, because by basic logic they can't all be correct.  But that doesn't mean I'm going to deny or downplay anyone's very real relationship with God or status as His disciple (aka a Christian).  Everyone deserves respect and I'll give it 100%.  

6 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Now the actions (as distinct from beliefs) that one must follow to be a Christian are where many Christians might divert to different paths. I get conflicting answers from Mormons as to whether or not I am a Christian since I haven’t been baptized by an LDS priesthood holder and also haven’t had a confirmation service immediately thereafter. I disagree, but that is ok with me because I also disagree on those kinds of points with many Christian groups, including Catholics, many reformed groups, others who practice baptismal regeneration, etc. I may disagree with them on this or that point, but I still call them Christians. Hence, I am free to also call Mormons Christians because as far as I have come to know they believe all of the points I outlined above to be a Christian. We are still at the Christian level of discussion.

Who is denied the fact that you are a Christian, and where may I find them to talk some basic sense into them?  Dude, you are a Christian 100%.  Being baptized isn't what gives you a relationship with Christ, not even in the LDS perspective.  That's not to say authority isn't important (cause it is), but it isn't what gives you a relationship with Christ. 

6 minutes ago, Navidad said:

More and more Protestants and evangelicals are coming to accept Saints as Christians; I get very mixed messages from my Mormon friends as to whether they accept non-Mormons as Christians. My experience in our ward has been that I am called Brother Phil in the context of the 1978 Presidency statement about other Christians and inter-faith work. I am Brother Phil because we were brothers and sisters in the pre-mortal world as spirit children of the same heavenly parents. That is where language gets tricky. I think my ward friends mean I am a brother with Christ; not necessarily a brother in Christ. That is not a distinction without a difference and we may be moving incrementally closer to what I can exceptionalism.

 

Before this paragraph we were very clearly talking basic Christian level.  No one* is denying that for you, other Evangelicals, Baptists, Catholics, etc.  That's cool.  (* Or at least no one *should* be denying this.  See my previous paragraph. )

But if you want to move to the next level of varieties and to "same difference" being a Baptist vs Catholics vs Saint vs Mennonite etc... why?  Why should any group just abandon the beliefs of that individualized?  For example, I would be very sad if Catholics were to say the Real Presence isn't important and can just be homogenized with other views of the Lord's Supper.  I would also be sad if Baptist abandoned their belief in a believers baptism as "it doesn't really matter".  It's not a bad thing to have different views on various theological issues and to be passionate about them.  Passionate faith is a good thing!  And of course, while being passionate we can all still treat each other respectfully and acknowledge each other's relationship with Christ.  

[Navidad]

52 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I have used such an explanation scheme myself many times-- traditional wording of I'm a Christian of the LDS variety.  My husband is a Christian of the non-denominational variety.  I have friends of many different Christian varieties.

Now, do I consider these varieties to all be equal?  No, because by basic logic they can't all be correct.  But that doesn't mean I'm going to deny or downplay anyone's very real relationship with God or status as His disciple (aka a Christian).  Everyone deserves respect and I'll give it 100%.  

Who is denied the fact that you are a Christian, and where may I find them to talk some basic sense into them?  Dude, you are a Christian 100%.  Being baptized isn't what gives you a relationship with Christ, not even in the LDS perspective.  That's not to say authority isn't important (cause it is), but it isn't what gives you a relationship with Christ. 

Before this paragraph we were very clearly talking basic Christian level.  No one* is denying that for you, other Evangelicals, Baptists, Catholics, etc.  That's cool.  (* Or at least no one *should* be denying this.  See my previous paragraph. )

But if you want to move to the next level of varieties and to "same difference" being a Baptist vs Catholics vs Saint vs Mennonite etc... why?  Why should any group just abandon the beliefs of that individualized?  For example, I would be very sad if Catholics were to say the Real Presence isn't important and can just be homogenized with other views of the Lord's Supper.  I would also be sad if Baptist abandoned their belief in a believers baptism as "it doesn't really matter".  It's not a bad thing to have different views on various theological issues and to be passionate about them.  Passionate faith is a good thing!  And of course, while being passionate we can all still treat each other respectfully and acknowledge each other's relationship with Christ.  

Hi Jane: Maybe I said something incorrectly in that last paragraph because I absolutely agree with you. I wouldn't ask anyone to abandon any of their idiosyncratic or individual beliefs. For example, Mennonites are a peace denomination, we practice (for the most part) conscientious objector beliefs. No one else needs to be such in order to be Christian, but it is a Mennonite distinctive. Nor should Mennonites have to give it up to be known as Christians. I would never think that those who believe in baptismal regeneration should give it up for any reason. Nor does that believe make them special.   I think we agree 100% and perhaps I wrote something wrong.  I will comment about your statement that someone must be correct. That seems to be a pretty common LDS perspective. I guess I logically agree, but pragmatically I realize that we will never know who is correct this side of the vale! We can debate and discuss and maybe someone might win someone over, but bottom line until we die, we will not know who is correct about a great many things. That is why I don't like to debate about such things. Such a debate is pure polemics. I find those distasteful.

[Navidad]

I will post again tomorrow to add the last installment to my thread. I am tired and not feeling so well this evening. best to each of you.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

One of you has asked me several times what I think is necessary for one to be a Christian. My answer to that question is not going to include what it takes to be a Mennonite, a Mormon, or to go to heaven to dwell with Heavenly Father for eternity. That is important. Those questions require different answers. To be a Christian one must believe that God exists in a Godhead that includes a Heavenly Father, a Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. One must believe that the Father sent the Son to earth to redeem humankind through his voluntary sufferings, death and literal resurrection. One must accept the atonement that Christ offered when He put himself on the cross, repent (turn around), and accept the grace of God offered in that sacrificial atonement. Then one can be called a follower (disciple) of Christ – what we call a Christian. So Pogi, my friend, there is my answer about necessary beliefs. I believe that for someone to be a Christian he or she must believe those beliefs. If it isn’t in that list I don’t believe it is essential for being called a Christian.

Thank you for sharing. 

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I  then separately, believe that becoming a Christian is a point in time experience in a Greek aorist sense. It then may or may not result in a life of learning to become more like Christ. I call that sanctification. It is an ongoing continual change and growth that I believe continues into the after-life. Not all Christians commit to that or work at it. What we call salvation is the first aorist point experience; what you call salvation (I think) is the initial experience and the sanctification part wrapped up in one concept and it also continues into the afterlife. We use the term salvation differently. That is ok. I have never heard the term sanctification used in our ward in the year I have been attending. However, when I use it, the folks seem to know what I mean. I don’t know if I have said anything about the beliefs necessary to be a Christian that Mormons don’t believe?

Just to clarify your position, are those core beliefs that are required to become a Christian the same core beliefs that are required for salvation?  In other words, once you are Christian, you are saved - as in OSAS? And any further sanctification is just icing on the cake? Is that a correct understanding?

I think you are confusing our understanding of salvation when you say: "what you call salvation (I think) is the initial experience and the sanctification part wrapped up in one concept and it also continues into the afterlife".  To us "salvation" is a free gift via the atonement of Christ to all of God's creation. The only rare exception are the sons of perdition who forfeit their salvation.  In that sense we consider ourselves universalists.  We view the position of Christianity as a requirement for salvation to be just as (if not MORE) exclusionary than our position.  It is very important to make the distinction between salvation and exaltation.  We view the conditional (exclusionary) requirement of Christianity for salvation to be incomprehensibly and uncharacteristically unmerciful/unjust of God.   Exaltation/deification (perhaps a glorified version of your understanding of sanctification), on the other hand, is conditional, just as sanctification is conditional in your beliefs. 

Edited October 9, 2018 by pogi

[Navidad]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

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?

Hi - post Vatican II, the Church does not claim the same only divine authority (to use your term) as they did before In 1964 at the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council things changed. In the published document Lumen Gentium, Sections 15 and 16 are quoted below in their entirety. They speak about non-Catholics and about those who have another gospel altogether:

5. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.

16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature",(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

So, where you are historically correct, much has changed in the Catholic Church, albeit to the chagrin of many Catholics. I may be wrong about the Saints standing alone in a belief that only their ordinances are salvific, but the Roman Catholic Church is no longer another example.

 

[Calm]

Quote

view Saints as Christians first and Saints second with perhaps no similar category to evangelical.

If you prefer the symmetry of a three tier approach for all, "Christians, Restorationists, then Saints" might work (but many Saints might not realize there are a variety of restorationist faiths).

Edited October 10, 2018 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hi - post Vatican II, the Church does not claim the same only divine authority (to use your term) as they did before In 1964 at the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council things changed. In the published document Lumen Gentium, ..............................

So, where you are historically correct, much has changed in the Catholic Church, albeit to the chagrin of many Catholics. I may be wrong about the Saints standing alone in a belief that only their ordinances are salvific, but the Roman Catholic Church is no longer another example.

What is noreworthy are the equivocations even in the quotations you provided, such that extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, "outside the Church there is no salvation" (1992 Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church), so that even those outside the RC Church must realize “at or before the moment of death" that the RC Church communion and the authority of its priesthood are absolute, i.e., without that realization, and without the RC faith "it is impossible to please God."  Vatican II said that one must accept the Roman Catholic "Church . . , possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, . . united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion."   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus#Second_Vatican_Council .

It is nonsense to believe that God does not choose those He wishes to represent Him.  From Abraham through His chosen people Israel, to the apostles chosen by Jesus Himself, it is clear that specific persons are God's formal representatives, and this is true throughout Holy Writ.  Israel had to choose between Elijah and the priests of Baal.  So, Navidad, you sound like a disappointed Canaanite who wants Baalism to have the full and equal approval of God.  Such has never happened, and never will.  It only seems unfair to those who do not know the economy of God.

[Navidad]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What is noreworthy are the equivocations even in the quotations you provided, such that extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, "outside the Church there is no salvation" (1992 Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church), so that even those outside the RC Church must realize “at or before the moment of death" that the RC Church communion and the authority of its priesthood are absolute, i.e., without that realization, and without the RC faith "it is impossible to please God."  Vatican II said that one must accept the Roman Catholic "Church . . , possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, . . united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion."   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus#Second_Vatican_Council .

It is nonsense to believe that God does not choose those He wishes to represent Him.  From Abraham through His chosen people Israel, to the apostles chosen by Jesus Himself, it is clear that specific persons are God's formal representatives, and this is true throughout Holy Writ.  Israel had to choose between Elijah and the priests of Baal.  So, Navidad, you sound like a disappointed Canaanite who wants Baalism to have the full and equal approval of God.  Such has never happened, and never will.  It only seems unfair to those who do not know the economy of God.

Are you equating non-Mormon Christians with the priests of Baal?

[Navidad]

Hi all: I should never have started this thread and I believe there is no way to delete it. My interest in the topic is mine. I take ownership of it and will develop it further somewhere else. I was hoping for a discussion, not being called a priest of Baal, a Canaanite. When things get that absurd, there is no point in going on. I suppose there are Catholics who believe they have a unique and absolute grasp on Spiritual truth, but not our very knowledgeable and kind priest down the street from us certainly doesn't feel that way. He is a delight to talk with, whether about his beloved pasta or deep spiritual truths. I suppose there are Saints who believe they have a unique and absolute grasp on Spiritual truth, but not our very knowledgeable and kind bishop in our ward. He is a Godly man and a delight in every way. Those are the relationships for which I hunger and thirst. I covet fellowshipping with fellow believers in Christ who renew my spirit and refresh my soul. I find them in many Christian communities. I have found them here on this forum. But, then there are the absolutists who come charging in and bring such negative energy into the conversation. On this forum I have never mentioned the writings of A.W. Tozer, the wonderful patriarch of the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church. He writes so beautifully about Psalm 42:1 " As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God." I simply want to be a Christian who has a thirst for God. I want to lift up and not tear down. The back and forth and discussion is great. When it gets toxic I don't think that honors the Lord or anyone else. When I contribute to that I know I don't bring honor to HIm either. There are Fundamentalists in every faith tradition who believe they have an absolute grasp on all truth and seek to belittle, mock, tear down, defeat, or yes, even kill (in the extreme) those who disagree. I know it may be hard to see from some of my posts, and I am ashamed of them, but I simply want to enjoy practicing the presence of God with fellow believers. I may be a "wimbling willow" at times, but I am never a "disappointed Canaanite" or a "priest of Baal." When I hear the whistlers and whittlers it is time to move on.
 

Edited October 10, 2018 by Navidad

[Jane_Doe]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

 but I am never a "disappointed Canaanite" or a "priest of Baal." When I hear the whistlers and whittlers it is time to move on.
 

Of course not.  

A great tool I have found for all forums I'm on: the "ignore" feature.  Allows me to continue speaking to people interested in fellowship / respectful discussion, and tune out those who have other goals. 

 

[Navidad]

2 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Of course not.  

A great tool I have found for all forums I'm on: the "ignore" feature.  Allows me to continue speaking to people interested in fellowship / respectful discussion, and tune out those who have other goals. 

 

Hi Jane: I didn't know such a tool exists. I will have to check it out. Thanks so very much.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

Are you equating non-Mormon Christians with the priests of Baal?

Sincere Mormon and non-Mormon "Christians" will always be confronted with crucial choices: 

“And Joshua said unto all the people [of Israel], … choose you this day whom ye will serve; … but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Joshua 24:2, 15).

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hi all: I should never have started this thread and I believe there is no way to delete it. My interest in the topic is mine. I take ownership of it and will develop it further somewhere else. I was hoping for a discussion, not being called a priest of Baal, a Canaanite. When things get that absurd, there is no point in going on. I suppose there are Catholics who believe they have a unique and absolute grasp on Spiritual truth, but not our very knowledgeable and kind priest down the street from us certainly doesn't feel that way. He is a delight to talk with, whether about his beloved pasta or deep spiritual truths. I suppose there are Saints who believe they have a unique and absolute grasp on Spiritual truth, but not our very knowledgeable and kind bishop in our ward. He is a Godly man and a delight in every way. Those are the relationships for which I hunger and thirst. I covet fellowshipping with fellow believers in Christ who renew my spirit and refresh my soul. I find them in many Christian communities. I have found them here on this forum. But, then there are the absolutists who come charging in and bring such negative energy into the conversation. On this forum I have never mentioned the writings of A.W. Tozer, the wonderful patriarch of the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church. He writes so beautifully about Psalm 42:1 " As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God." I simply want to be a Christian who has a thirst for God. I want to lift up and not tear down. The back and forth and discussion is great. When it gets toxic I don't think that honors the Lord or anyone else. When I contribute to that I know I don't bring honor to HIm either. There are Fundamentalists in every faith tradition who believe they have an absolute grasp on all truth and seek to belittle, mock, tear down, defeat, or yes, even kill (in the extreme) those who disagree. I know it may be hard to see from some of my posts, and I am ashamed of them, but I simply want to enjoy practicing the presence of God with fellow believers. I may be a "wimbling willow" at times, but I am never a "disappointed Canaanite" or a "priest of Baal." When I hear the whistlers and whittlers it is time to move on.

On the contrary, this has been a valuable set of exchanges, which helps clarify the divergent opinions which we all have.  This is typical of conversations on this board, and we do not expect everyone to agree with us or to make us feel justified.  What we seek is learning and growth through research and articulating our divergent POVs.  The path of learning is not static but dynamic, so it will naturally seem disconcerting at times.  That is because it is part of an important process of change and growth.

Your finding of fault in others does not bode well for the learning process.

[MiserereNobis]

On 10/8/2018 at 7:35 PM, 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;

If this is what the priest is teaching, he is incorrect and is teaching heresy. Is he older and a child of the "spirit of Vatican II"?

The Catholic Church is the Church of Christ. The Pope holds the exclusive keys of St. Peter. There is no other organization authorized by God to act fully in God's name besides the Catholic Church (Orthodoxy has some claim -- but that's complex).

In Catholicism, Protestants are heretics who have abandoned the true path for a lesser one. Yes, they are Christian (if they have been baptized) and thus are part of the Mystical Body of Christ but they are not in communion with the visible Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church.

I'm using these strong words because this is the teaching of Holy Mother Church. Your priest friend may be relying on some of the weasel words from Vatican II, but those words never changed the doctrine, just made it less "offensive" and more open to incorrect universalist interpretation. Vatican II certainly had some issues, as seen in the practical applications primarily in the 70s-90s.

Catholicism is definitely an exclusive Christian Church. Non-Catholic Christians are even excluded from Holy Communion.

My point is that your claim that all Christian Churches are universally inclusive is demonstrably false with the largest Christian Church of all, the Catholic Church (1.2 billion) as the biggest example.