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

Navidad · October 10, 2018

22 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

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.

Hi amigo: Thanks for the response. Let me clarify something and then I would be very interested in your reaction. I never really finished what I was trying to say in my thread. I got a bit discouraged and never completed it. When I am talking about exclusivity I am talking about only one thing - the right to live in heaven with the Father and Christ for eternity - nothing more. Am I right or wrong in saying that Roman Catholics do not require that a non-Catholic experiences Catholic baptism in order to be present with the Lord upon death. My point is that the Saints restrict living in the level of heaven where the Father and Christ dwell to those who receive LDS baptism in this world or in the next by accepting a proxy baptism on their behalf. Without either of those - straight to the telestial or terrestrial kingdom where at most, Christ might visit. That requirement is the exclusivity about which I am writing. I am unaware of any other Christian group, other than Saints that deny the practice of the presence of God for all eternity absent their specific ordinance performed by their specific priesthood holder. I am not talking about authority to speak for God on earth, exclusive availability of the sacrament, or anything else - simply that Catholics do not limit heaven - the dwelling place of Christ and the Father to Catholics. Would you please comment on that? If I am wrong, I need to know. BTW, I live in Mexico. The Mexican Catholic Church is, in my observations not the most orthodox Catholic community in the world. I went to a baptism here in our little village where the padrina was Jewish. I am not sure that is kosher in the Catholic Church . . . . We will have one priest in town who forbids matachin dancers because they are a remnant of indigenous religions; the next priest says "sure, I want to come and see them dance!" That confuses the locals who simply love the matachin festivals to bless the crops. Thanks again for your reply.

Edited October 10, 2018 by Navidad

RevTestament · October 10, 2018

33 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hi amigo: Thanks for the response. Let me clarify something and then I would be very interested in your reaction. I never really finished what I was trying to say in my thread. I got a bit discouraged and never completed it. When I am talking about exclusivity I am talking about only one thing - the right to live in heaven with the Father and Christ for eternity - nothing more. Am I right or wrong in saying that Roman Catholics do not require that a non-Catholic experiences Catholic baptism in order to be present with the Lord upon death. My point is that the Saints restrict living in the level of heaven where the Father and Christ dwell to those who receive LDS baptism in this world or in the next by accepting a proxy baptism on their behalf. Without either of those - straight to the telestial or terrestrial kingdom where at most, Christ might visit. That requirement is the exclusivity about which I am writing. I am unaware of any other Christian group, other than Saints that deny the practice of the presence of God for all eternity absent their specific ordinance performed by their specific priesthood holder. I am not talking about authority to speak for God on earth, exclusive availability of the sacrament, or anything else - simply that Catholics do not limit heaven - the dwelling place of Christ and the Father to Catholics. Would you please comment on that? If I am wrong, I need to know. BTW, I live in Mexico. The Mexican Catholic Church is, in my observations not the most orthodox Catholic community in the world. I went to a baptism here in our little village where the padrina was Jewish. I am not sure that is kosher in the Catholic Church . . . . We will have one priest in town who forbids matachin dancers because they are a remnant of indigenous religions; the next priest says "sure, I want to come and see them dance!" That confuses the locals who simply love the matachin festivals to bless the crops. Thanks again for your reply.

Phil,

In my estimation you have simply narrowed your definition of LDS exclusivity to the point that virtually only LDS can be included in it. I just don't see it as a relevant definition anymore. Many Christians exclude others from their idea of heaven if they don't get baptized. Indeed that is basically why infant baptism exists. Christianity is an exclusive religion by definition. You must believe in Yeshua to get in - no Muslims, Taoists, Hindus, etc, allowed. Rather than being permanently exclusive to these people - who may have never heard of Christ - LDS Christianity teaches such individuals still have the chance to learn of him and accept him when they die, and before they are resurrected. You seem to try to turn that around in your definition of LDS exclusivity as if we are going to keep all non-LDS Christians out of heaven - apparently because your idea of salvation can only happen before death. Really, nothing is further from the truth.

- just a little friendly give and take.

Jane_Doe · October 10, 2018

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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).

Hey, let us be respectful to others and in know way deny or downplay anyone's love of Christ (regardless of which pew their butt warms on Sunday).

Calm · October 10, 2018

dup

Edited October 10, 2018 by Calm

Calm · October 10, 2018

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

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

It is at the bottom of your profile menu options, that is likely in the upper right hand of the screen. Click on the arrow next to your name, at the bottom it says "ignored users". Very handy. You have the option of reading a post if you want by clicking on "options" in the oneline place holder that indicates the ignored post. You can also pull the poster off the ignored list by another option there, so you don't have to go into your profile for anything but putting them on it

Jane_Doe · October 10, 2018

On 10/9/2018 at 3:38 PM, Navidad said:

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.

(Finally have the time to adequately reply to this)

Background things we've already talked about no need to re-hash: being Christian at the first basic level. Love of Christ, devotion to Him, etc. We should all treat each other with respect, acknowledge each other's love of Christ, etc.

Now, talking about the second tier of specificity: which group underneath the larger Christian umbrella and the interplay between them. I'm trying to figure out how to best convey my thoughts and struggling to find the words.... I'll try using an example to illustrate what I mean. Picking one at random, I'll go with the Catholic belief in the Real Presence and try to write this from their perspective ( @MiserereNobis, if I misspeak anything here, please please correct me).

Catholics believe in the Real Presence and that's a HUGE deal for them. That belief is Truth, with a capital T. Symbolic interpretations of the Lord's Supper are seen as being incorrect and missing a critical element. This leads to the following logic: Church A which teaches the Real Presence (a Truth) are more correct than church B which teaches a symbolic interpretation (which is a falsehood). These churches are NOT equal-- because church A teaches this Truth and church B teaches a falsehood. Church A is exceptional to church B, if you want to use those words.

Continuing with logic: the only way churches A and B can be equal is if the Real Presence carried zero weight-- if it was a meaningless idea that totally didn't matter if it was True or not. To completely throw out the idea out in favor of "same difference" homogenization.

Now, I'm not a Catholic and I don't believe in the Real Presence. But I would find it to be TRAGIC if Catholics were to discard that belief to adopt the stance of "Real Presence and symbolic communion churches are equal in all things". Fortunately this "if" has a zero chance happening: they are dedicated to their beliefs that way and aren't going to succumb to world pressure that way. And I applaud them for holding to that dedication, even when the in results in the stance that the Catholic Church is > the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I never wish for Catholics to surrender their belief in the Real Presence for "same differencing we'll all equal" blahness. Likewise Orthodox and their relics, Baptists and their believers baptism, Pentecostals and their speaking in tongues, distinctive Saint beliefs, and so many others.

@Navidad, am I making sense thus far?

Now, there is a fair chance I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that you are advocating that Catholics should abandon their belief in the Real Presence in order to adopt that it's-all-equal-stance. That Catholics believing that their church is more correct than the LDS Church (or any other church) is somehow a bad thing that needs to go away. Or Saints believing that their church is more correct than the Catholic Church (or any other church) is somehow a bad thing that needs to go away. I don't find this to be a bad thing at all-- rather something I applaud my Catholics friends for! Just like I applaud my Baptist friends for being passionate about a believers baptism, and my Pentecostal friends for being passionate about speaking in tongues the way they do.

Did that make sense?

Edited October 10, 2018 by Jane_Doe

Navidad · October 11, 2018

4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Phil,

In my estimation you have simply narrowed your definition of LDS exclusivity to the point that virtually only LDS can be included in it. I just don't see it as a relevant definition anymore. Many Christians exclude others from their idea of heaven if they don't get baptized. Indeed that is basically why infant baptism exists. Christianity is an exclusive religion by definition. You must believe in Yeshua to get in - no Muslims, Taoists, Hindus, etc, allowed. Rather than being permanently exclusive to these people - who may have never heard of Christ - LDS Christianity teaches such individuals still have the chance to learn of him and accept him when they die, and before they are resurrected. You seem to try to turn that around in your definition of LDS exclusivity as if we are going to keep all non-LDS Christians out of heaven - apparently because your idea of salvation can only happen before death. Really, nothing is further from the truth.

- just a little friendly give and take.

Hi my friend. I don't want to debate about this any more. You have talked about "many Christians who exclude." Can you name any? I know of none. I never said you must believe in Yeshua to get in - you did. I don't believe that no Muslims, Taoists, Hindus, etc. will get into heaven. That is God's decision, not mine. I am not "permanently exclusive to these people." You are stating that from what you think. Once again you are telling me what I believe. I think you are amazing, but you have to let me tell you what I and many other evangelicals believe. I have never said only my idea can happen before death. You are a wonderful guy, but you are presenting what you think I believe as what I believe. That isn't fair. I am not an exclusivist; I am an inclusivist, as are many other evangelicals. Sometimes I think Mormons are so used to talking about what Protestants or evangelicals believe without any challenge, that you just assume it is true. You are a good man- just please let me tell you what I believe. Ask me, don't tell me. OK? I will honor you the same way!

RevTestament · October 11, 2018

50 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hi my friend. I don't want to debate about this any more. You have talked about "many Christians who exclude." Can you name any? I know of none. I never said you must believe in Yeshua to get in - you did. I don't believe that no Muslims, Taoists, Hindus, etc. will get into heaven. That is God's decision, not mine. I am not "permanently exclusive to these people." You are stating that from what you think. Once again you are telling me what I believe. I think you are amazing, but you have to let me tell you what I and many other evangelicals believe. I have never said only my idea can happen before death. You are a wonderful guy, but you are presenting what you think I believe as what I believe. That isn't fair. I am not an exclusivist; I am an inclusivist, as are many other evangelicals. Sometimes I think Mormons are so used to talking about what Protestants or evangelicals believe without any challenge, that you just assume it is true. You are a good man- just please let me tell you what I believe. Ask me, don't tell me. OK? I will honor you the same way!

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth Phil. It just seemed to me that I had picked up these things from your posts. To the extent I misunderstood, I apologize. Discussing other sects I don't think will be fruitful. Cheers

Edited October 11, 2018 by RevTestament

Navidad · October 11, 2018

18 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Hey, let us be respectful to others and in know way deny or downplay anyone's love of Christ (regardless of which pew their butt warms on Sunday).

My buttocks are in the third row left side of the old first ward every Sunday! Right next to my wife and about 30 miscellaneous Romneys!

mfbukowski · October 11, 2018

On 10/9/2018 at 1:08 PM, 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?

Exactly. 👍

Even "being a Christian" separates one from those who are not.

Edited October 11, 2018 by mfbukowski

Navidad · October 11, 2018

17 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

(Finally have the time to adequately reply to this)

Background things we've already talked about no need to re-hash: being Christian at the first basic level. Love of Christ, devotion to Him, etc. We should all treat each other with respect, acknowledge each other's love of Christ, etc.

Now, talking about the second tier of specificity: which group underneath the larger Christian umbrella and the interplay between them. I'm trying to figure out how to best convey my thoughts and struggling to find the words.... I'll try using an example to illustrate what I mean.   Picking one at random, I'll go with the Catholic belief in the Real Presence and try to write this from their perspective ( @MiserereNobis, if I misspeak anything here, please please correct me).

Catholics believe in the Real Presence and that's a HUGE deal for them. That belief is Truth, with a capital T. Symbolic interpretations of the Lord's Supper are seen as being incorrect and missing a critical element. This leads to the following logic: Church A which teaches the Real Presence (a Truth) are more correct than church B which teaches a symbolic interpretation (which is a falsehood). These churches are NOT equal-- because church A teaches this Truth and church B teaches a falsehood. Church A is exceptional to church B, if you want to use those words.

Continuing with logic: the only way churches A and B can be equal is if the Real Presence carried zero weight-- if it was a meaningless idea that totally didn't matter if it was True or not. To completely throw out the idea out in favor of "same difference" homogenization.

Now, I'm not a Catholic and I don't believe in the Real Presence. But I would find it to be TRAGIC if Catholics were to discard that belief to adopt the stance of "Real Presence and symbolic communion churches are equal in all things". Fortunately this "if" has a zero chance happening: they are dedicated to their beliefs that way and aren't going to succumb to world pressure that way. And I applaud them for holding to that dedication, even when the in results in the stance that the Catholic Church is > the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I never wish for Catholics to surrender their belief in the Real Presence for "same differencing we'll all equal" blahness. Likewise Orthodox and their relics, Baptists and their believers baptism, Pentecostals and their speaking in tongues, distinctive Saint beliefs, and so many others.

@Navidad, am I making sense thus far?

Now, there is a fair chance I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that you are advocating that Catholics should abandon their belief in the Real Presence in order to adopt that it's-all-equal-stance. That Catholics believing that their church is more correct than the LDS Church (or any other church) is somehow a bad thing that needs to go away. Or Saints believing that their church is more correct than the Catholic Church (or any other church) is somehow a bad thing that needs to go away. I don't find this to be a bad thing at all-- rather something I applaud my Catholics friends for! Just like I applaud my Baptist friends for being passionate about a believers baptism, and my Pentecostal friends for being passionate about speaking in tongues the way they do.

Did that make sense?

Hi Jane - I don't think anyone should abandon any of their beliefs. My concern that I probably still haven't stated well is that 1. I know of no other Christian group, including the Catholic Church who denies living forever in the presence of God and Christ to anyone who has not accepted their denomination's specific baptism, either in this life or the next. That is unique (as far as I know) to the Saints. I may get to a higher kingdom through an after death acceptance of your ordinance, but it is still your ordinance. My baptism doesn't count. Mine means a lot to me for many reasons. It is not a happy thought to be told it is null and void (even "fraudulent") for eternal life. I have said a dozen times, I may be wrong, but no one has come up with another Christian group who declares that their baptism is the only one valid for eternal life. Without wanting to appear negative, I think the Saints have a blind spot to this fact and to how offensive it is to non-Mormons. I am not suggesting or even advocating that the Saints change their doctrine that their baptism is the only valid one for eternal life (in your meaning of the term). I am just pointing out something that it seems is not realized, how offensive that is - and I offer that for placement in the "for whatever it is worth department."

I also have said I think the Saints stereotype and offer much incorrect information about Protestants and Evangelicals. I think it must be handed down through the culture. Many folks on this forum are very particular about what is said about LDS beliefs; yet keyboard away with abandon about those of Protestants and Evangelicals. I simply wanted to offer that you all might be more careful in your broad generalizations. Thats it. I never suggested or even thought that anyone would change anything. Folks have continued to tell me I am exclusive too because I limit heaven only to Christians. I have never said that and I don't believe that. I am an inclusivist, not an exclusivist in terms of heaven. It is God's choice who He allows to live there forever. I think there will be many more folks there than others may think. There are many evangelicals who believe likewise.

I so appreciate your tone in your messages. Many of you have been very kind to me, complete with all my questions. Thanks.

Navidad · October 11, 2018

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Exactly. 👍

Please read my response to Jane in my last post. I do not limit eternal life with the Father to only Christians. God only knows who He will accept. It is our faith that gains us entrance to heaven, not necessarily our salvation. This is a very common belief among non-exclusionary evangelicals. It seems that maybe you all are not familiar with that. That kind of point is where I would like to bring a broader and more accurate perspective about Protestants and Evangelicals to the forum. I haven't seen anyone else here doing that except in a rather snarky manner. I have been snarky too, and have apologized. I have repented and changed my ways! I've even been called a follower of Baal and I didn't get snarky. That is good for me!

pogi · October 11, 2018

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Please read my response to Jane in my last post. I do not limit eternal life with the Father to only Christians. God only knows who He will accept. It is our faith that gains us entrance to heaven, not necessarily our salvation.

You seem to distinguish between entrance to heaven from salvation. Am I misunderstanding you here? One can be saved and not enter heaven? And if it is our faith in Jesus Christ which gains us entrance to heaven, then how is that not exclusive to Christians?

You previously listed core doctrines that are "required" for salvation. Those seemed to correspond with "requirements" for being a Christian. So what am I missing here? How are those not exclusionary if they are requirements?

Edited October 11, 2018 by pogi

Jane_Doe · October 11, 2018

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hi Jane - I don't think anyone should abandon any of their beliefs. My concern that I probably still haven't stated well is that 1. I know of no other Christian group, including the Catholic Church who denies living forever in the presence of God and Christ to anyone who has not accepted their denomination's specific baptism, either in this life or the next. That is unique (as far as I know) to the Saints. I may get to a higher kingdom through an after death acceptance of your ordinance, but it is still your ordinance. My baptism doesn't count. Mine means a lot to me for many reasons.

No one is saying your Mennonite baptism wasn't important-- if you want i can repeat my soapbox on how my husband Calvery Chapel baptism was a huge turning point in his life (and mine). It lacked the formal authority, but that doesn't mean it was super important, or didn't result in major change as he gave his life to Christ. My husband Calvary Chapel baptism (and all the stuff beforehand) transformed him into the Christian man I love today.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Without wanting to appear negative, I think the Saints have a blind spot to this fact and to how offensive it is to non-Mormons.

.... ..... ... *crickets* .... ..... ...

.... ..... ...I just got done writing about how important and transformative an non-LDS baptism can be..... ..... ...

.... ..... ... *crickets* .... ..... ..

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I also have said I think the Saints stereotype and offer much incorrect information about Protestants and Evangelicals. I think it must be handed down through the culture. Many folks on this forum are very particular about what is said about LDS beliefs; yet keyboard away with abandon about those of Protestants and Evangelicals. I simply wanted to offer that you all might be more careful in your broad generalizations.

I am not writing about broad generations handed down by culture. I am talking about experiences I have with people I see in my own regular life. I am very careful with my words, and perceptions, and go out of my way to make sure I understand things correctly. I regularly visit and attend services at Protestants/Evangelical churches. I will gladly shared some of the great experiences I've had there.

When someone (LDS, Evangelical, or other) makes a mistake about someone's beliefs, I try to correct it in as gentle and charitable way as possible. Sometimes people listen and we have great conversation. But sometimes folks (LDS, Evangelical, or other) would rather believe some cultural-hand-me-down-nonsense rather than check the facts and see the real people involved-- and frankly that saddens me but I can't force people to listen. I can't force my pig-headed Evangelical mother-in-law to ditch blind stereotyping, and I can't force pig-headed LDS "Bob" to ditch blind stereotyping. I can only control my actions/words, and be the best example and voice of reason I can be.

I know that you've encountered some antagonist folks who happen to be LDS-- I totally acknowledge that and am sorry for their actions. I... sometime it seems like the peaceful voices get drowned out by the one antagonistic one. Ok, paying attention more to the screaming rather than the gentle is totally human nature-- that is totally true. But still... as a peaceful voice I do feel less heard a lot.

Edited October 11, 2018 by Jane_Doe

pogi · October 11, 2018

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I know of no other Christian group, including the Catholic Church who denies living forever in the presence of God and Christ to anyone who has not accepted their denomination's specific baptism, either in this life or the next. That is unique (as far as I know) to the Saints. I may get to a higher kingdom through an after death acceptance of your ordinance, but it is still your ordinance. My baptism doesn't count. Mine means a lot to me for many reasons. It is not a happy thought to be told it is null and void (even "fraudulent") for eternal life.

Are you suggesting that other Christian denominations don't list baptism as a requirement for salvation? Are you also suggesting that some of those congregations do not perceive our baptism as "fraudulent"?

Quote

Mormons do not accept non-Mormon baptism nor do non-Mormon Christians usually accept Mormon baptism.

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

Go to temple square during conference and you will find other Christian groups who deny Latter-day Saints salvation because our baptism and version of Christianity is fraudulent. I have a hard time believing, with all your experience, that you have never met another Christian group who denies Later-day Saints salvation. That is exclusionary. Not very unique to us. Catholics tell us that our baptism is null and void. Many other's as well. We are not unique in that. I don't take offense. It makes sense to me to acknowledge the differences instead of pretending like we are all the same baptism.

Navidad · October 11, 2018

2 hours ago, pogi said:

You seem to distinguish between entrance to heaven from salvation. Am I misunderstanding you here? One can be saved and not enter heaven? And if it is our faith in Jesus Christ which gains us entrance to heaven, then how is that not exclusive to Christians?

You previously listed core doctrines that are "required" for salvation. Those seemed to correspond with "requirements" for being a Christian. So what am I missing here? How are those not exclusionary if they are requirements?

I do distinguish salvation (becoming a Christian - which relates to my doctrinal points) and those who will allowed into heaven for eternity. None who are saved are excluded. That is the easy part. One may not have been saved and God will allow him or her into heaven. I make a distinction because we have huge, mammoth numbers of people who lived before the atonement and who have lived since the atonement and have not heard the gospel message. What about them? Are they all consigned to hell or perdition? The evangelical world is divided on this into about four camps - from very exclusive to very inclusive. It is a mystery. The Saints solve the problem by doing proxy baptisms, providing all an opportunity to accept the LDS baptism. I believe God knows and will make his decisions one by one based on His knowledge of the person's heart and intent. That is a broad statement, but this is a brief answer. There are any number of great books on the subject. It is a challenge. My favorite is 'A Wideness in God's Mercy" by Clark Pinnock - a great evangelical scholar and professor. Thanks my friend.

Edited October 11, 2018 by Navidad

Navidad · October 11, 2018

2 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

No one is saying your Mennonite baptism wasn't important-- if you want i can repeat my soapbox on how my husband Calvery Chapel baptism was a huge turning point in his life (and mine). It lacked the formal authority, but that doesn't mean it was super important, or didn't result in major change as he gave his life to Christ. My husband Calvary Chapel baptism (and all the stuff beforehand) transformed him into the Christian man I love today.

.... ..... ... *crickets* .... ..... ...

.... ..... ...I just got done writing about how important and transformative an non-LDS baptism can be..... ..... ...

.... ..... ... *crickets* .... ..... ..

I am not writing about broad generations handed down by culture. I am talking about experiences I have with people I see in my own regular life. I am very careful with my words, and perceptions, and go out of my way to make sure I understand things correctly. I regularly visit and attend services at Protestants/Evangelical churches. I will gladly shared some of the great experiences I've had there.

When someone (LDS, Evangelical, or other) makes a mistake about someone's beliefs, I try to correct it in as gentle and charitable way as possible. Sometimes people listen and we have great conversation. But sometimes folks (LDS, Evangelical, or other) would rather believe some cultural-hand-me-down-nonsense rather than check the facts and see the real people involved-- and frankly that saddens me but I can't force people to listen. I can't force my pig-headed Evangelical mother-in-law to ditch blind stereotyping, and I can't force pig-headed LDS "Bob" to ditch blind stereotyping. I can only control my actions/words, and be the best example and voice of reason I can be.

I know that you've encountered some antagonist folks who happen to be LDS-- I totally acknowledge that and am sorry for their actions. I... sometime it seems like the peaceful voices get drowned out by the one antagonistic one. Ok, paying attention more to the screaming rather than the gentle is totally human nature-- that is totally true. But still... as a peaceful voice I do feel less heard a lot.

I hear you and I appreciate it very much. I appreciate your kind words about the transformational possibilities in all Baptisms, Mormon and non-Mormon. I am not sure what the crickets mean - maybe that no one is listening? Especially me? Transformational or not, sadly however the official position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that only a baptism performed by a holder of the LDS priesthood is valid to start the salvation and exaltation process.

Jamesglendell · October 11, 2018

After a brief ready of this post I would like to say something. First of all thank you for putting a great deal of effort into trying to communicate a difficult point. If the world could learn to have opposing or slightly altered views with out vilifying other in would be a better world indeed. I am a lifelong member of the church. My activity may have wavered badly at times it is a source of strength that has always been there for me. Like you I feel that there are a multitude of paths that will lead us to Gods plan for happiness. Sure there are some basic things that need to be present but the actual path through life's maze can have infinite possibilities. As a matter of fact I think this is crucial. We can never learn and understand all there is to know. So we learn our path, our road, from time to time we have a chance to share what we have learned, to reach someone in a way few people can. Through this variety of knowledge and experiences we can ALL GROW. We should all share peacefully learn what is needed from others good and bad. Grow from it. If it truly bothers you let it go, maybe it wasn't for you but it may yet help someone else. To bring this back to the original post. Thank you again for an example of how to peacefully and respectfully handle disagreement.

Jeanne · October 11, 2018

5 minutes ago, Jamesglendell said:

After a brief ready of this post I would like to say something. First of all thank you for putting a great deal of effort into trying to communicate a difficult point. If the world could learn to have opposing or slightly altered views with out vilifying other in would be a better world indeed. I am a lifelong member of the church. My activity may have wavered badly at times it is a source of strength that has always been there for me. Like you I feel that there are a multitude of paths that will lead us to Gods plan for happiness. Sure there are some basic things that need to be present but the actual path through life's maze can have infinite possibilities. As a matter of fact I think this is crucial. We can never learn and understand all there is to know. So we learn our path, our road, from time to time we have a chance to share what we have learned, to reach someone in a way few people can. Through this variety of knowledge and experiences we can ALL GROW. We should all share peacefully learn what is needed from others good and bad. Grow from it. If it truly bothers you let it go, maybe it wasn't for you but it may yet help someone else. To bring this back to the original post. Thank you again for an example of how to peacefully and respectfully handle disagreement.

Welcome! An a huge Amen to a wonderful post!

Navidad · October 11, 2018

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Are you suggesting that other Christian denominations don't list baptism as a requirement for salvation? Are you also suggesting that some of those congregations do not perceive our baptism as "fraudulent"?

Go to temple square during conference and you will find other Christian groups who deny Latter-day Saints salvation because our baptism and version of Christianity is fraudulent. I have a hard time believing, with all your experience, that you have never met another Christian group who denies Later-day Saints salvation. That is exclusionary. Not very unique to us. Catholics tell us that our baptism is null and void. Many other's as well. We are not unique in that. I don't take offense. It makes sense to me to acknowledge the differences instead of pretending like we are all the same baptism.

Thanks for your reply You are absolutely correct; of course there evangelicals and Protestants, perhaps a majority who don't consider Mormons Christians. I don't deny that. The majority of them are also exclusivists about heaven. That is why they deny Mormons heaven -- not because they don't accept Mormon baptism. They don't accept Mormon baptism because they don't consider Mormons Christians. But, that is an individual thing, not a denominational position, and it is aimed at Mormons only (sorry), not all of Christianity who don't belong to their particular group.

Again, I don't know of any Christian group who as a group practice and belief, denies all other Christians access to the presence of God for eternity for not having accepted their mode of baptism. Yes, there are exclusivist Christians who would for example consign all who haven't heard the gospel to hell. They have their reasons. I disagree with them. Many agree with me that Mormons are Christians. I am your advocate everywhere I go and everywhere I preach. Christianity is the largest single religious belief in the world. 31.2% of the world's population, over 2.2 billion souls. I know of no other Christian group who rejects all but 12-15,000,000 of them for entrance in heaven without that group's own specific mode, method and meaning of baptism. Mormons have told me my baptism is fraudulent; some Christians tell Mormons their belief is fraudulent, therefore their baptism is fraudulent. Many Mormons take great offense at that, I don't blame them. But the exact same Mormons cannot see the same thing (offense) in their own beliefs about the entire rest of the Christian world. I have a recent book by a well-known LDS scholar who writes that non-Mormons simply have "to stomach" the offense. I would never say that to a Saint. I don't think you need anything other than your own personal faith in Christ to be ushered into glory. I will proudly take your hand and walk there with you with no add-ons to what you already have. Unfortunately the kindest Saint will not take my hand and walk there with me unless I accept their baptism before we begin walking. They are convinced that God Himself will reject everyone who hasn't received LDS baptism in this world or the next as a candidate to live, learn, and grow with Him. Instead, you offer me a really nice place in the telestial, or terrestial kingdom where one person of the Godhead may visit once in a while, or an angel or two, but not Heavenly Father - just stomach it! That is what grieves me and causes me to keep harping on this. I don't think Mormons recognize the offense of that. I have even told the folks in our chapel not to "Brother" me any more; because they don't mean it in any way except as a fellow spirit child from eons earlier. I don't want to hear that. Sorry, I write too much.

pogi · October 11, 2018

6 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I do distinguish salvation (becoming a Christian - which relates to my doctrinal points) and those who will allowed into heaven for eternity. None who are saved are excluded. That is the easy part. One may not have been saved and God will allow him or her into heaven. I make a distinction because we have huge, mammoth numbers of people who lived before the atonement and who have lived since the atonement and have not heard the gospel message. What about them? Are they all consigned to hell or perdition? The evangelical world is divided on this into about four camps - from very exclusive to very inclusive. It is a mystery. The Saints solve the problem by doing proxy baptisms, providing all an opportunity to accept the LDS baptism. I believe God knows and will make his decisions one by one based on His knowledge of the person's heart and intent. That is a broad statement, but this is a brief answer. There are any number of great books on the subject. It is a challenge. My favorite is 'A Wideness in God's Mercy" by Clark Pinnock - a great evangelical scholar and professor. Thanks my friend.

Thanks for answering. It helps when I understand the perspective of the person I dialogue with.

I am trying to clarify to get to the root of your accusation that Mormons are the only exclusive religion in terms of salvation. I simply want you to be honest with yourself and acknowledge that we are not the only exclusive Christian religion in terms of salvation. It seems that you don't deny that your version of salvation is exclusive. Only Christians are truly saved, according to what you said above. The others (divided and excluded) are some lesser breed - not really saved - not really damned - though they may for some mysterious reason make it into heaven and mingle with the "saved" based on some mysterious criteria that God refuses to reveal for some mysterious reason.

This just does not make sense to me. If they are not "saved" from spiritual/physical death via the atonement, then how can they live with God forever in heaven? If the atonement has not saved them and cleansed them from sin, how can the impure and unholy pollute God's presence? Spiritual death in Mormonese means "separation from God". So, if a person is not separated from God in the hereafter, then they are "saved". If they are not "saved" then they are NOT with God. That is how we understand the term "saved".

So, if these lesser breed non-Christians are not saved but still are allowed into heaven for some mysterious reason, what are they not saved from if not spiritual death? What does it mean that they are "not" saved. Not saved from what?

You did say that the different evangelical camps range from "very exclusive to very inclusive", so are you now acknowledging that we are not the ONLY exclusive group that you know of?

Thank you for acknowledging that the restored gospel of Jesus Christ has "solved the problem" I agree! Because this mysterious "challenge" that has divided the evangelical world seems to have no solid foundation for any of the different schools of thought. It feels to me like a theological loop-hole to appease one's conscience and to keep from believing that the Christian God is completely evil! Yet the problem of this evil God never goes away because there is no solid foundation for one belief or the other within evangelism.

MiserereNobis · October 11, 2018

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

I know of no other Christian group, including the Catholic Church who denies living forever in the presence of God and Christ to anyone who has not accepted their denomination's specific baptism, either in this life or the next

You are quite mistaken here. The Catholic Church most certainly does deny some denomination's specific baptism, including LDS baptism.

Click here for a partial list of denominations whose baptisms we consider valid or invalid (it's a formatted PDF, so hard to cut and paste). Scroll to pages 2-4 and notice all the red "invalid."

Also, according to Catholic Church doctrine, a valid baptism means you are baptized Catholic -- all valid baptisms are Catholic baptisms, regardless of who or where they are performed (that's what is meant by valid -- it is done according to Catholic rules). So when a protestant is baptized by a protestant, and it is a valid baptism, they are actually being baptized Catholic, since there is no such thing as a protestant baptism. There is, as the scripture and the creed say, "one faith, one baptism." That baptism is Catholic.

Your repeated assertions that Catholicism is inclusive are wrong and if your priest friend is teaching you this then he is incorrect (I imagine him to be from the "spirit of Vatican II" crowd if this is what he is teaching). Look instead to an officially authorized text, such as the Catechism or the pronouncements of Ecumenical Councils.

Edited October 11, 2018 by MiserereNobis
I was having trouble with 403 error messages

Navidad · October 11, 2018

40 minutes ago, Jamesglendell said:

After a brief ready of this post I would like to say something. First of all thank you for putting a great deal of effort into trying to communicate a difficult point. If the world could learn to have opposing or slightly altered views with out vilifying other in would be a better world indeed. I am a lifelong member of the church. My activity may have wavered badly at times it is a source of strength that has always been there for me. Like you I feel that there are a multitude of paths that will lead us to Gods plan for happiness. Sure there are some basic things that need to be present but the actual path through life's maze can have infinite possibilities. As a matter of fact I think this is crucial. We can never learn and understand all there is to know. So we learn our path, our road, from time to time we have a chance to share what we have learned, to reach someone in a way few people can. Through this variety of knowledge and experiences we can ALL GROW. We should all share peacefully learn what is needed from others good and bad. Grow from it. If it truly bothers you let it go, maybe it wasn't for you but it may yet help someone else. To bring this back to the original post. Thank you again for an example of how to peacefully and respectfully handle disagreement.

Thanks and I welcome you too. This is a wonderful post. I appreciate your kind words and thank you for all your faithful work for the Savior. I hope you find good fellowship here.

Jane_Doe · October 11, 2018

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I hear you and I appreciate it very much. I appreciate your kind words about the transformational possibilities in all Baptisms, Mormon and non-Mormon. I am not sure what the crickets mean - maybe that no one is listening? Especially me? Transformational or not, sadly however the official position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that only a baptism performed by a holder of the LDS priesthood is valid to start the salvation and exaltation process.

Honestly I am feeling somewhat ignored here.

It seems like you keep thinking that I (other LDS folks) view non-LDS baptisms as not being important, transformative, or otherwise marks of a person truely coming to Christ--- when I have written quite passionately about how a non LDS baptism can indeed have all those qualities. I don't know how I can communicate that value more thoroughly, and it is frustrating to be told, despite all my proclaiming of importance/transformation/rebirth that I'm not valuing non-LDS baptisms and being offensive that way.

The disagreement on authority is a separate issue than a baptism being important, transformative, and that person coming closer to Christ.

Normally, if this were some random conversation I would go "well, the person I'm talking to obviously doesn't want to listen to the truth and would instead rather be needlessly offended", and move on with life. But you're not some random person- in fact I have a large respect for you, and your ability to listen. Which is why I keep trying here, even though it's frustrating.

Edited October 11, 2018 by Jane_Doe

pogi · October 11, 2018

53 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for your reply You are absolutely correct; of course there evangelicals and Protestants, perhaps a majority who don't consider Mormons Christians. I don't deny that. The majority of them are also exclusivists about heaven. That is why they deny Mormons heaven -- not because they don't accept Mormon baptism. They don't accept Mormon baptism because they don't consider Mormons Christians. But, that is an individual thing, not a denominational position, and it is aimed at Mormons only (sorry), not all of Christianity who don't belong to their particular group.

Again, I don't know of any Christian group who as a group practice and belief, denies all other Christians access to the presence of God for eternity for not having accepted their mode of baptism. Yes, there are exclusivist Christians who would for example consign all who haven't heard the gospel to hell. They have their reasons. I disagree with them. Many agree with me that Mormons are Christians. I am your advocate everywhere I go and everywhere I preach. Christianity is the largest single religious belief in the world. 31.2% of the world's population, over 2.2 billion souls. I know of no other Christian group who rejects all but 12-15,000,000 of them for entrance in heaven without that group's own specific mode, method and meaning of baptism. Mormons have told me my baptism is fraudulent; some Christians tell Mormons their belief is fraudulent, therefore their baptism is fraudulent. Many Mormons take great offense at that, I don't blame them. But the exact same Mormons cannot see the same thing (offense) in their own beliefs about the entire rest of the Christian world. I have a recent book by a well-known LDS scholar who writes that non-Mormons simply have "to stomach" the offense. I would never say that to a Saint. I don't think you need anything other than your own personal faith in Christ to be ushered into glory. I will proudly take your hand and walk there with you with no add-ons to what you already have. Unfortunately the kindest Saint will not take my hand and walk there with me unless I accept their baptism before we begin walking. They are convinced that God Himself will reject everyone who hasn't received LDS baptism in this world or the next as a candidate to live, learn, and grow with Him. Instead, you offer me a really nice place in the telestial, or terrestial kingdom where one person of the Godhead may visit once in a while, or an angel or two, but not Heavenly Father - just stomach it! That is what grieves me and causes me to keep harping on this. I don't think Mormons recognize the offense of that. I have even told the folks in our chapel not to "Brother" me any more; because they don't mean it in any way except as a fellow spirit child from eons earlier. I don't want to hear that. Sorry, I write too much.

Ok, this answers some of my questions above.

The fact that we are exclusivist in a different way from the rest of Christianity does not make us that special. It is a distinction without much of a difference. Exclusion is exclusion based on one criteria or another, so I don't see the need to highlight Mormon exclusivism as if it is extraordinarily exclusive when compared to the rest of Christianity. We are simply exclusive in a different way - a way that is much more inclusive to the rest of the non-Christian world, and perfectly merciful and just to the rest of the Christian world.

I don't understand this offense. Honestly, I don't! I could understand being offended if you truly believed in the restored gospel and wanted to be baptized and we would not allow you to be baptized. But you don't believe our message. You don't believe our baptism is special. So why do you let it affect you? It is like being offended at Hindus for believing that you will not be reincarnated as a cow. I am not concerned for you Navidad. I have complete faith that those with pure hearts will accept - not our baptism, but HIs. I sense that you have a good heart.

While the rest of Christianity might be offended by us - the rest of the world is offended by Christian exclusivism.

Edited October 11, 2018 by pogi

Sign In

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

Recommended Posts

Navidad

RevTestament

Jane_Doe

Calm

Calm

Jane_Doe

Navidad

RevTestament

Navidad

mfbukowski

Navidad

Navidad

pogi

Jane_Doe

pogi

Navidad

Navidad

Jamesglendell

Jeanne

Navidad

pogi

MiserereNobis

Navidad

Jane_Doe

pogi

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse