If a Latter-day Saint Converts, is that Considered a Sin?

[Teancum]

On 10/24/2018 at 6:47 PM, Navidad said:

If a Latter-day Saint converts to another faith, is that considered a sin? If a person then resigns his or her membership can he or she subsequently be excommunicated? I think the answer must be no, but I am not sure. I think I have heard of folks resigning their membership to keep from being excommunicated. Is there some benefit to doing that?

One other different thing; I ask this because of a real historical situation I am researching. I would like your thoughts. In 1889 a Saint was arrested and convicted for incest (not for plural marriage). He was sentenced to 10 years in Yuma Federal Penitentiary.  He escaped and ran to a small Mexican colony  where he lived, we know for at least 23 years. He had been excommunicated for his crime. He then was re-baptized and had "his blessings restored." - not sure what that means, in his new home ward. All this time he was wanted for his escape from prison. It is said he was then murdered in his home, but there are no civil records of his death and no records of his being buried in the LDS cemetery in the colony. Would it be considered rare or strange for a wanted man to be re-baptized (I have seen the records) and apparently being ordained into the priesthood without paying restitution for his escape, and having been convicted of incest? I know this was 100 years ago, but I have been asked to look into it by some of his descendants. A lot of it just doesn't make sense to me. Any thoughts?

My understanding of this is based on my memory of the handbook of instructions when I was a bishop 2003-2008.  Then joining another church was considered apostasy and grounds for excommunication. 

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

My understanding of this is based on my memory of the handbook of instructions when I was a bishop 2003-2008.  Then joining another church was considered apostasy and grounds for excommunication. 

This was my understanding also.  A fellow member of my former ward was exed because he taught Bible classes at the Post Chapel.

[MiserereNobis]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I think really the key is advocating it's teachings to members of our church to draw them away.

But that's not what it says. It just says "advocating its teachings." I, for one, do not know how someone could join another church and not advocated its teachings, unless advocate is narrowly defined as proselytizing or some such. If I believe something, I'm going to advocate for it in my life, words, and actions, even if I do nothing close to proselytizing.

But, back to the bolded/italics. Since that is not in the handbook, doesn't that leave it up to local leadership to decided what apostasy means?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

But that's not what it says. It just says "advocating its teachings." I, for one, do not know how someone could join another church and not advocated its teachings, unless advocate is narrowly defined as proselytizing or some such. If I believe something, I'm going to advocate for it in my life, words, and actions, even if I do nothing close to proselytizing.

But, back to the bolded/italics. Since that is not in the handbook, doesn't that leave it up to local leadership to decided what apostasy means?

Yes of course. Every Bishop is ordained a bishop and also as a "common judge in Israel."

A disciplinary Council would be held as appropriate and a decision would be made as to the action to be taken.

And yes I think "proselytizing" would be a good word to use in describing What would most likely cause such a council to be called in actual practice.

In at least 30 years of my experience being at a level of leadership where I would be aware of such things, I have only seen one case in which a court might even be considered. That disciplinary council has not yet happened and I don't know if it is even scheduled at this time and the person involved has become a rabid anti-Mormon trying to take as many people out of the church as possible.

Over the years on this board there have been many accounts of people being excommunicated for apostasy in such cases -you might want to look those up. But yes the decision is at least theoretically made locally. I have heard of pressure from above but I have not seen an example of it.

But on the other hand of course as I said I have not actually heard of such a court ever being held locally.

Usually when no one wants to leave the church and get their names off the records one simply request the bishop to do so. I've heard accounts of that being difficult in Utah, but I have never seen an example of it elsewhere.

When I was a bishop we cleared out the rolls of people who wanted to have their name removed and there were a few. We simply sent the letter and got it done. I can see no reason to keep someone on the rolls if they don't want to be. That strikes me as absurd.

If you want to join another church join it.

It just seems silly to me to hang out in a church you don't want to be in anymore. We sure see a lot of that on this board though.

If I was in that position again, I would just vote with my feet as I did with Catholicism.

Edited October 28, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Jane_Doe]

On 10/27/2018 at 9:29 AM, Navidad said:

I posted this originally. Since then I have done a lot of thinking. That's trouble, isn't it? Maybe someone moving from Methodist to Mormon or Mormon to Congregationalist isn't a conversion at all, but simply a movement within God's collective church as described in D&C 1:30? He made it clear He wasn't talking to the individual church (LDS or Baptist), but to the church collectively (The Christian Church). Does someone else have a better idea of what the word collectively means?

NO.

@Navidad, you're "same differencing" beliefs again.

If a person joins a Methodist congregation, they should do so because they believe Methodist beliefs.  Join a Congregationalist congregation is you believe Congregationalist beliefs.  Congregationalist and Methodist beliefs are not the same.  What your advocating here is a watering down of beliefs, and that attitude only weakens all.   

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

NO.

@Navidad, you're "same differencing" beliefs again.

If a person joins a Methodist congregation, they should do so because they believe Methodist beliefs.  Join a Congregationalist congregation is you believe Congregationalist beliefs.  Congregationalist and Methodist beliefs are not the same.  What your advocating here is a watering down of beliefs, and that attitude only weakens all.   

I am not sure I am following you, but I didn't expect Latter-day Saints to agree with me. I am simply offering a different interpretation of conversion and of D&C 1:30. I view Christianity as a tree. The different denominations/groups within Christianity are branches of the same tree. Each branch bears fruit - like a tree, the same fruit. I am not saying there are no differences between the branches, but there is no difference between the fruit. The fruit is Christianity. I don't believe Christianity is an orchard of different trees producing different fruit. It is one tree - different branches - same fruit. Congregationalism is one branch - great for those who want to be on that branch. The Catholic Church is another branch, great for those who want that branch. The LDS faith is another branch; great for those who want a verdant branch full of wonderful fruit. All the branches form the "collective" tree. Isn't that the way it is in nature - the nature that God created?

I think the Latter-day Saints kind of see Christianity as an orchard of different trees. Only one tree has the true and living fruit that provides all that is needed for life and health - true Christianity - the LDS tree. Some of the fruit of the other trees has some benefit, but only the LDS tree produces the true fruit of the Spirit. I reject that because I believe in one tree; one fruit; many branches. That is why I have no problem affirming that branch of the tree that is called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints produces Christian fruit. Anyone who takes of the fruit of any branch - literally who eats and drinks of that fruit is a Christian - like we talked about today in Isaiah. So yes, I guess I 'same differencing" (I am not familiar with that word)  Christian beliefs - the basic beliefs in the atonement and sufficiency of Christ" produce the fruit on all the branches on the tree of Christianity - the tree of life. Christ is the trunk - we are the branches.

And I am not exclusive about the other side of the veil. That is a whole different subject.

Edited October 28, 2018 by Navidad

[flameburns623]

3 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

NO.

@Navidad, you're "same differencing" beliefs again.

If a person joins a Methodist congregation, they should do so because they believe Methodist beliefs.  Join a Congregationalist congregation is you believe Congregationalist beliefs.  Congregationalist and Methodist beliefs are not the same.  What your advocating here is a watering down of beliefs, and that attitude only weakens all.   

People of a certain paradigm see syncretism as a threat to some version of orthodoy, to some established dogma. These are the folks who can abide only within James Fowler's Stage Three of Faith Development. 

Those who move towards Stage Five see things wholly differently,  see syncretism as completing to parts of a greater whole, of strengthening and transforming that whole into something that will be greater than the sum of it's parts. 

My sense, anyhow. 

[Jane_Doe]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am not sure I am following you, but I didn't expect Latter-day Saints to agree with me. I am simply offering a different interpretation of conversion and of D&C 1:30. I view Christianity as a tree. The different denominations/groups within Christianity are branches of the same tree. Each branch bears fruit - like a tree, the same fruit. I am not saying there are no differences between the branches, but there is no difference between the fruit. The fruit is Christianity. I don't believe Christianity is an orchard of different trees producing different fruit. It is one tree - different branches - same fruit. Congregationalism is one branch - great for those who want to be on that branch. The Catholic Church is another branch, great for those who want that branch. The LDS faith is another branch; great for those who want a verdant branch full of wonderful fruit. All the branches form the "collective" tree. Isn't that the way it is in nature - the nature that God created?

No.

God has one Truth, and it matters.  Your view is one that Truth doesn't matter.  And no, I'm not saying this from a "it's got to be LDS or the highway perspective", rather a perspective which CHERISHES Congregationalism, Methodism, Catholicism, etc, and never wants to see them disregarded in the fashion you're doing here.  For example write off stuff like Catholic love of the Eucharists as "it doesn't really matter" disregards part of beauty of Catholicism.  I NEVER want to see such an attitude because I love Catholicism.  Same with rest of other faiths you mentioned.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

 the basic beliefs in the atonement and sufficiency of Christ" produce the fruit on all the branches on the tree of Christianity - the tree of life. Christ is the trunk - we are the branches.

And I am not exclusive about the other side of the veil. That is a whole different subject.

You're mixing up Truths and people here.  Those are two VERY different things. 

[Navidad]

3 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

No.

God has one Truth, and it matters.  Your view is one that Truth doesn't matter.  And no, I'm not saying this from a "it's got to be LDS or the highway perspective", rather a perspective which CHERISHES Congregationalism, Methodism, Catholicism, etc, and never wants to see them disregarded in the fashion you're doing here.  For example write off stuff like Catholic love of the Eucharists as "it doesn't really matter" disregards part of beauty of Catholicism.  I NEVER want to see such an attitude because I love Catholicism.  Same with rest of other faiths you mentioned.

You're mixing up Truths and people here.  Those are two VERY different things. 

I agree God has one truth - Christ's atonement and the sufficiency of that coupled with our repentance. That is His truth that is found in every major Christian branch including the LDS branch. I have no idea why you would say that my view is that truth doesn't matter. Of course it does and it is found in Christianity. Congregationalism, Methodism, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Catholicism are branches of Christianity; I certainly don't disregard any of them. They each contain "the truth." They also contain other things like "love for the Eucharist," love for "peacemaking," love for "a congregational form of government," "love for the family" that are special ingredients in their faith that differentiates. The Christian "truth" remains the same - the essence of the fruit for each branch. Nothing else but that truth produces fruit. Each Christian faith group has its distinctives, they are precious to that group, but those distinctives are not what constitutes the fruit. I once heard a very distinctive LDS scholar speak about the patriotism and willingness to go to war of the LDS Christians during WWI. They had very few conscientious objectors. That patriotism  was a distinctive, but it isn't salvific. My group, the Mennonites created the conscientious objector movement in WWI. They refused to fight, were jailed and often beat up or otherwise abused because of it. That same sense today is a distinctive of the Mennonite faith. It is a distinctive, but it isn't salvific. Christ said, "I am the way, the TRUTH, and the Life. He is the truth! I hope that helps clarify what I do believe about the difference between distinctives and truth.

[Jane_Doe]

24 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I agree God has one truth - Christ's atonement and the sufficiency of that coupled with our repentance. That is His truth that is found in every major Christian branch including the LDS branch. I have no idea why you would say that my view is that truth doesn't matter. Of course it does and it is found in Christianity. Congregationalism, Methodism, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Catholicism are branches of Christianity; I certainly don't disregard any of them. They each contain "the truth." They also contain other things like "love for the Eucharist," love for "peacemaking," love for "a congregational form of government," "love for the family" that are special ingredients in their faith that differentiates. The Christian "truth" remains the same - the essence of the fruit for each branch. Nothing else but that truth produces fruit. Each Christian faith group has its distinctives, they are precious to that group, but those distinctives are not what constitutes the fruit. I once heard a very distinctive LDS scholar speak about the patriotism and willingness to go to war of the LDS Christians during WWI. They had very few conscientious objectors. That patriotism  was a distinctive, but it isn't salvific. My group, the Mennonites created the conscientious objector movement in WWI. They refused to fight, were jailed and often beat up or otherwise abused because of it. That same sense today is a distinctive of the Mennonite faith. It is a distinctive, but it isn't salvific. Christ said, "I am the way, the TRUTH, and the Life. He is the truth! I hope that helps clarify what I do believe about the difference between distinctives and truth.

Again, you're mixing two different subjects 1) people being saved, and 2) what is Truth.  There are many things out there that are True, but not believing in them is not necessary for salvation.  And a person can have faulty understanding and still be saved.    I'm not talking about salvation here, just about Truth.  

(For the below I'm rolling with the example of the Lord's Supper.  If you rather me use a different example, just ask).

Is the prayer for the Lord's Supper meant to be interpreted literally or symbolically?  Obviously Christ meant one or the other, and that one He meant is the True answer to that question.  It's not a question that determines salvation, but it does have a True answer.  Obviously, I'm LDS and believe that the Lord's Supper is symbolic.  Catholics obviously believe the literal interpretation.

If I were to approach this question with the mindset of "it''s not salvific question, it's just a distinctive trait of two branches of the same tree", then I'm effectively saying "because it's not a salvific question, the Truth here doesn't matter."  I'd be disregarding every churches beliefs on this matter as "it doesn't matter".  As if the Lord's Supper was the same level of importance as what color your church's carpet is.  I... I can't do that.  Not only because I love the LDS faith, but also because I love the Catholic faith, including their honoring of Christ through their love of the Eucharist.  It's an important Truth for them, and Truth should be prized.  Taking the stance of "because it's not salvific it doesn't matter" is...  the opposite of prizing it. 

[LittleNipper]

21 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Again, you're mixing two different subjects 1) people being saved, and 2) what is Truth.  There are many things out there that are True, but not believing in them is not necessary for salvation.  And a person can have faulty understanding and still be saved.    I'm not talking about salvation here, just about Truth.  

(For the below I'm rolling with the example of the Lord's Supper.  If you rather me use a different example, just ask).

Is the prayer for the Lord's Supper meant to be interpreted literally or symbolically?  Obviously Christ meant one or the other, and that one He meant is the True answer to that question.  It's not a question that determines salvation, but it does have a True answer.  Obviously, I'm LDS and believe that the Lord's Supper is symbolic.  Catholics obviously believe the literal interpretation.

If I were to approach this question with the mindset of "it''s not salvific question, it's just a distinctive trait of two branches of the same tree", then I'm effectively saying "because it's not a salvific question, the Truth here doesn't matter."  I'd be disregarding every churches beliefs on this matter as "it doesn't matter".  As if the Lord's Supper was the same level of importance as what color your church's carpet is.  I... I can't do that.  Not only because I love the LDS faith, but also because I love the Catholic faith, including their honoring of Christ through their love of the Eucharist.  It's an important Truth for them, and Truth should be prized.  Taking the stance of "because it's not salvific it doesn't matter" is...  the opposite of prizing it. 

I honestly believe that you are right to a point; however, I understand that the truly saved individual will experience an unquestionable uneasiness. Certain things many not make sense or there may be some confrontation. In any case, such an individual will find that he/she becomes stagnant and not growing spiritually. I know a born-again Christian couple that remained Roman Catholic for several years after attending a Billy Graham Crusade, until they finally concluded that there were unanswerable problems contrary to the Bible and they finally made the break. They never looked back.

[Jane_Doe]

7 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

I honestly believe that you are right to a point; however, I understand that the truly saved individual will experience an unquestionable uneasiness. Certain things many not make sense or there may be some confrontation. In any case, such an individual will find that he/she becomes stagnant and not growing spiritually. I know a born-again Christian couple that remained Roman Catholic for several years after attending a Billy Graham Crusade, until they finally concluded that there were unanswerable problems contrary to the Bible and they finally made the break. They never looked back.

I which case you converted from RCC Christian to <new Christian faith> because you changed to believing RCC beliefs were True to <new beliefs> were True.  Or in other words you converted. 

Edited October 29, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

I which case you converted from RCC Christian to <new Christian faith> because you changed to believing RCC beliefs were True to <new beliefs> were True.  Or in other words you converted. 

I agree with you, In that case you moved to a different branch on the Christian tree. If you choose to call that a conversion, then so be it - it is a conversion within Christianity. I certainly have no interest in arguing about that. I was simply pondering some new thoughts. These folks weren't any more Christian when they converted to a different Christian group than when they were Roman Catholics. They decided they like a different branch better so they "converted." They thought they found more "truth" in the non-essentials. Fine. But they didn't become more Christian when they converted because you can't become "more" Christian. You either is or you ain't, regardless of your branch.

Is the prayer for the Lord's supper meant to be interpreted literally or symbolically? On this side of the veil 1. I believe we will never know; 2. It doesn't matter because believing either way doesn't impact one's status as a Christian. 3. God hasn't told us in a way in which we can have absolute confidence. 4. Do you really want to lose a Catholic friend over that debate? 5. I think there are 400 things at least within Christianity about which we could debate. I prefer not to. I have very little need to be right; to have the only truth. I have Christ. He is my truth. I have enough challenge living a Christ-honoring life as it is. I suppose we either all were or were not spirit children. I don't know. That is not something I choose to fight about. One day we will know. Today isn't that day. I want to love my LDS-Christian friends and community. I am not asking them to agree with me on foot-washing. Is foot-washing an ordinance or not? The vast majority of Christian groups say no. A tiny percentage say yes. Worth fighting or disagreeing about? Nope. I want to focus on Phil's growth and sanctification. That is enough for me. Do you really believe that God loves those who don't wash feet less? Or that he loves those who wash feet more? I don't. It is an ordinance that has meaning to me. It probably doesn't to 98% of Christianity. If some Christian out there joins the Mennonite Church because of the fact he has found truths in foot-washing that teach him humility, a servant focus, he sees it in the Scripture. Wonderful. If he comes from the Methodist Church to do so he is no more or less a Christian that he was while a Methodist. If another friend is a Methodist who thinks washing feet is silly, so be it. I really don't care. He may even say "I bet the last thing you do at home before a foot-washing service is wash your feet and put on clean socks!" Ha Gotcha! Sigh. I don't care. He is right! but I still find significance in the bishop kneeling in front of me modeling Christ. There is no gotcha in it!

Edited October 29, 2018 by Navidad

[Paloma]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I agree with you, In that case you moved to a different branch on the Christian tree. If you choose to call that a conversion, then so be it - it is a conversion within Christianity. I certainly have no interest in arguing about that. I was simply pondering some new thoughts. These folks weren't any more Christian when they converted to a different Christian group than when they were Roman Catholics. They decided they like a different branch better so they "converted." They thought they found more "truth" in the non-essentials. Fine. But they didn't become more Christian when they converted because you can't become "more" Christian. You either is or you ain't, regardless of your branch.

Is the prayer for the Lord's supper meant to be interpreted literally or symbolically? On this side of the veil 1. I believe we will never know; 2. It doesn't matter because believing either way doesn't impact one's status as a Christian. 3. God hasn't told us in a way in which we can have absolute confidence. 4. Do you really want to lose a Catholic friend over that debate? 5. I think there are 400 things at least within Christianity about which we could debate. I prefer not to. I have very little need to be right; to have the only truth. I have Christ. He is my truth. I have enough challenge living a Christ-honoring life as it is. I suppose we either all were or were not spirit children. I don't know. That is not something I choose to fight about. One day we will know. Today isn't that day. I want to love my LDS-Christian friends and community. I am not asking them to agree with me on foot-washing. Is foot-washing an ordinance or not? The vast majority of Christian groups say no. A tiny percentage say yes. Worth fighting or disagreeing about? Nope. I want to focus on Phil's growth and sanctification. That is enough for me. Do you really believe that God loves those who don't wash feet less? Or that he loves those who wash feet more? I don't. It is an ordinance that has meaning to me. It probably doesn't to 98% of Christianity. If some Christian out there joins the Mennonite Church because of the fact he has found truths in foot-washing that teach him humility, a servant focus, he sees it in the Scripture. Wonderful. If he comes from the Methodist Church to do so he is no more or less a Christian that he was while a Methodist. If another friend is a Methodist who thinks washing feet is silly, so be it. I really don't care. He may even say "I bet the last thing you do at home before a foot-washing service is wash your feet and put on clean socks!" Ha Gotcha! Sigh. I don't care. He is right! but I still find significance in the bishop kneeling in front of me modeling Christ. There is no gotcha in it!

Navidad, I find such a beautiful generosity of spirit ... and spirit of love and inclusion ... in your posts.  There's so much in your writing that resonates with me.  (And I find it interesting that we have certain points of connection ... mission work in Africa, when I was serving with AEF that later merged with SIM ... I served on the Canadian Board of both AEF and SIM for many years, and have friends within AIM ... like you, I have a Mennonite connection and love foot washing ... and I identify with the peace position, both the conscientious objector stance and actively working for peaceful rather than violent solutions ... and like you, I have a deep love for people of the LDS faith that's rooted in my relationships with them.  And the most profound way I find kinship with you is in your central, all-encompassing belief  that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life.  I love that you say:  "I have very little need to be right; to have the only truth.  I have Christ.  He is my truth.  I have enough challenge living a Christ-honoring life as it is.")

As I was reading your post above, two thoughts from my post-grad Seminary days (distinct from what LDS understand as Seminary!) came to me.  The first was during the first day of a course in Systematic Theology when the professor cautioned us to approach our study with great humility, because "we're all full of a thousand heresies".

And the second relates to a paper I wrote for my Minor Prophets course on "The Knowledge of Yahweh in Hosea and Amos".  "To know (Hebrew "yada') God" is rooted in covenant relationship and requires exclusive loyalty and heart obedience to the Lord.  The natural outgrowth of this is lives marked by love and faithfulness, compassion and justice.  Or, for short, love God and love people!

For you and for me, I see, exclusive loyalty to the Lord results, almost paradoxically, in a robust and joyfully inclusive embrace of others whose hearts incline to the Lord.  

My earliest upbringing was in a Calvinist tradition that was also evangelical and inclusive.  (Maybe that'll blow the socks off some LDS folk who like to try and 'categorize' our many, many {crazy !!!???} distinctions!)

I love the title of Brian McLaren's book - A Generous Orthodoxy: WHY I AM A missional + evangelical + post/protestant + liberal/conservative + mystical/poetic + biblical + charismatic/contemplative + fundamentalist/calvinist + anabaptist/anglican + methodist + catholic + green + incarnational + depressed -yet-hopeful + emergent + unfinished CHRISTIAN.

I also love Clark Pinnock's book, A Wideness in God's Mercy.

And I see your presence on this board as a gift (though, of course, who am I to say that, since I'm a non-LDS Christian 'guest' here, and a very rare poster at that!).

 

 

Edited October 29, 2018 by Paloma

[Jane_Doe]

10 hours ago, Navidad said:

I agree with you, In that case you moved to a different branch on the Christian tree. If you choose to call that a conversion, then so be it - it is a conversion within Christianity. I certainly have no interest in arguing about that. I was simply pondering some new thoughts. These folks weren't any more Christian when they converted to a different Christian group than when they were Roman Catholics. They decided they like a different branch better so they "converted." They thought they found more "truth" in the non-essentials. Fine. But they didn't become more Christian when they converted because you can't become "more" Christian. You either is or you ain't, regardless of your branch.

Is the prayer for the Lord's supper meant to be interpreted literally or symbolically? On this side of the veil 1. I believe we will never know; 2. It doesn't matter because believing either way doesn't impact one's status as a Christian. 3. God hasn't told us in a way in which we can have absolute confidence. 4. Do you really want to lose a Catholic friend over that debate? 5. I think there are 400 things at least within Christianity about which we could debate. I prefer not to. I have very little need to be right; to have the only truth. I have Christ. He is my truth. I have enough challenge living a Christ-honoring life as it is. I suppose we either all were or were not spirit children. I don't know. That is not something I choose to fight about. One day we will know. Today isn't that day. I want to love my LDS-Christian friends and community. I am not asking them to agree with me on foot-washing. Is foot-washing an ordinance or not? The vast majority of Christian groups say no. A tiny percentage say yes. Worth fighting or disagreeing about? Nope. I want to focus on Phil's growth and sanctification. That is enough for me. Do you really believe that God loves those who don't wash feet less? Or that he loves those who wash feet more? I don't. It is an ordinance that has meaning to me. It probably doesn't to 98% of Christianity. If some Christian out there joins the Mennonite Church because of the fact he has found truths in foot-washing that teach him humility, a servant focus, he sees it in the Scripture. Wonderful. If he comes from the Methodist Church to do so he is no more or less a Christian that he was while a Methodist. If another friend is a Methodist who thinks washing feet is silly, so be it. I really don't care. He may even say "I bet the last thing you do at home before a foot-washing service is wash your feet and put on clean socks!" Ha Gotcha! Sigh. I don't care. He is right! but I still find significance in the bishop kneeling in front of me modeling Christ. There is no gotcha in it!

I applaud your dedication to humility, but I... I can't agree with you on tossing so many Christians beliefs in the trash can of "it doesn't matter".  Such is.... yeah, suffice it to say that I passionately disagree with you here.  To me, this attitude is a mass degradation of the beautiful Methodist faiths, Mennonite, Catholic, LDS, and all other Christian groups.  

[RevTestament]

14 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I applaud your dedication to humility, but I... I can't agree with you on tossing so many Christians beliefs in the trash can of "it doesn't matter".  Such is.... yeah, suffice it to say that I passionately disagree with you here.  To me, this attitude is a mass degradation of the beautiful Methodist faiths, Mennonite, Catholic, LDS, and all other Christian groups.  

I think what Navidad is trying to say is that Christians shouldn't have so much contention amongst themselves, because they are all Christian, no matter the level of their understanding, if they are trying to follow Christ, and repent of their sins. I think he is saying we shouldn't judge a person just because they belong to the RCC Church, or the Calvinist Presbyterian Church, etc.  I don't think he is saying not to value the beautiful truths in the different sects, which is what I am hearing you to be concerned about - although personally I see little beauty in the Calvinist/Reformed theology - it seems to irk me the most. 

However, I do see some Churches as teaching about God better than others. I also do believe that Christ set up The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS to be a light to the other churches. I don't think He wants us to condemn them. Navidad is simply saying that sometimes certain things LDS do and say feel exclusionary or hurtful to him. I think we should listen and change to the extent we can. I don't propose giving up teaching that Christ restored His gospel in this Church, but some can kind of be obnoxious about "having the truth." We must be careful about that unless we end up like the Jews who in their pride would not stop to help the wounded man on the side of the road like the good Samaritan did. There is a lesson there. Goodness is not determined by sect. The Samaritans whom the Jews mostly despised, came to the rescue in His parable. People don't want to be made "a project" for some self-righteous Mormon to convert. Having the truth is not an attitude one should adopt, because it lends that air. Further, I personally believe the Church ain't that perfect when it comes to its teachings - it has made some mistakes. 

[Jane_Doe]

6 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I think what Navidad is trying to say is that Christians shouldn't have so much contention amongst themselves, because they are all Christian, no matter the level of their understanding, if they are trying to follow Christ, and repent of their sins. I think he is saying we shouldn't judge a person just because they belong to the RCC Church, or the Calvinist Presbyterian Church, etc.  I don't think he is saying not to value the beautiful truths in the different sects, which is what I am hearing you to be concerned about - although personally I see little beauty in the Calvinist/Reformed theology - it seems to irk me the most. 

However, I do see some Churches as teaching about God better than others. I also do believe that Christ set up The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS to be a light to the other churches. I don't think He wants us to condemn them. Navidad is simply saying that sometimes certain things LDS do and say feel exclusionary or hurtful to him. I think we should listen and change to the extent we can.

Stance A) Christians should all get along peacefully.  Yes, there are differences there, and they're important and they should be cherished.  Yes, we all still should love and respect each other, even while acknowledging the differences.  

Stance B) Christians should all get along peacefully.  Yes, there are differences there, and they're NOT important because they aren't salvific.  Forget about them- none of them matter.   And once we forget about the differences, we'll all love each other cause we're all identical.  If you ever read "The Giver" the idea is Sameness talked about there.

I LOVE the idea of Stance A, I champion it and do my best to promote it.  Stance B... no.  It is horrible.   And it seems @Navidad champions Stance B.  If I'm misunderstanding him, I would love to have that pointed out.  But I keep hearing talk about "oh it doesn't matter" and "we can't know" and decrying faiths who do think we can know and Truth matters.  Again, I would love to be totally misunderstanding here.  

6 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I don't propose giving up teaching that Christ restored His gospel in this Church, but some can kind of be obnoxious about "having the truth." We must be careful about that unless we end up like the Jews who in their pride would not stop to help the wounded man on the side of the road like the good Samaritan did. There is a lesson there. Goodness is not determined by sect. The Samaritans whom the Jews mostly despised, came to the rescue in His parable. People don't want to be made "a project" for some self-righteous Mormon to convert. Having the truth is not an attitude one should adopt, because it lends that air. Further, I personally believe the Church ain't that perfect when it comes to its teachings - it has made some mistakes. 

No one here is advocating being obnoxious or not helping people.  And people should never be a project.  Again, both stances advocate peace & respect.  The difference is just the road to that goal-- is it through cherishing differences or Sameness.  

 

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

I honestly believe that you are right to a point; however, I understand that the truly saved individual will experience an unquestionable uneasiness. 

(About doctrinal errors)

Yes that is proof that feelings matter in determining the truth of one's path.

Thanks for the admission.

[Paloma]

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

I applaud your dedication to humility, but I... I can't agree with you on tossing so many Christians beliefs in the trash can of "it doesn't matter".  Such is.... yeah, suffice it to say that I passionately disagree with you here.  To me, this attitude is a mass degradation of the beautiful Methodist faiths, Mennonite, Catholic, LDS, and all other Christian groups.  

Interesting that you say that about Navidad, Jane, because I see in him a rare and beautiful appreciation of many distinctive beliefs of others, and particularly of Latter-day Saint teachings and practices.

[Jane_Doe]

8 minutes ago, Paloma said:

Interesting that you say that about Navidad, Jane, because I see in him a rare and beautiful appreciation of many distinctive beliefs of others, and particularly of Latter-day Saint teachings and practices.

See my post starting with "Stance A) Christians should all get along..."

[Navidad]

10 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Stance A) Christians should all get along peacefully.  Yes, there are differences there, and they're important and they should be cherished.  Yes, we all still should love and respect each other, even while acknowledging the differences.  

Stance B) Christians should all get along peacefully.  Yes, there are differences there, and they're NOT important because they aren't salvific.  Forget about them- none of them matter.   And once we forget about the differences, we'll all love each other cause we're all identical.  If you ever read "The Giver" the idea is Sameness talked about there.

I LOVE the idea of Stance A, I champion it and do my best to promote it.  Stance B... no.  It is horrible.   And it seems @Navidad champions Stance B.  If I'm misunderstanding him, I would love to have that pointed out.  But I keep hearing talk about "oh it doesn't matter" and "we can't know" and decrying faiths who do think we can know and Truth matters.  Again, I would love to be totally misunderstanding here.  

No one here is advocating being obnoxious or not helping people.  And people should never be a project.  Again, both stances advocate peace & respect.  The difference is just the road to that goal-- is it through cherishing differences or Sameness.  

 

Hi Jane: I have been traveling all day. Sorry for failing to reply. I think I understand your Stance A; I do not understand your Stance B. So I will offer a stance C as my position. - Christians should all get along peacefully. Yes, there are differences among Christians but many of them are not worth arguing or bickering about, abusing the other for holding, or worse yet, using them as an excuse to deny the other the role or label of "Christian" in its fullest sense. Yes, I do believe many of the differences do not matter in the eternal scheme of things. Don't you? Church polity (government), belief in the creeds (as opposed to what they contain), the number of the ordinances - I am told Saints have had as many as 17; Mennonites have 4 or 5, whether the millenium is literal or metaphorical, etc. Yes, many of the differences are about things we cannot "know" on this side of the veil. Don't you faith things that you don't know? Faith is the right word for us to use because we, in fact often don't "know" for sure. To use the British construct, we "faith" things. Some are critical to the Christian faith, some are not. Many Christians cannot even agree on what those are.

I believe we need to learn to honor each other's faith in Christ and not let these lesser issues (understanding that we won't even agree on which are lesser) divide us as Christians. I advocate for much more humility in our certitude. Certainly not everything can be faithed with certitude; then it isn't faith any more. When members of this or that group are certain about everything, they make the rest of us searchers, seekers, and strugglers less than. I also think they deceive themselves. I have no idea where this concept of the trash comes from. The most exciting, stimulating and challenging things about Christianity outside of the story of redemption are our differences. Both our differences and our similarities are worth celebrating; i simply prefer to focus on our similarities. I hate however when our differences divide us, and of course, in some cases where our similarities divide us!

I have never served my denomination in a national capacity but I have served several inter-faith groups in international capacities. That is what I enjoy. I have said it publicly in sermons, and to you all on this forum on a number of occasions: I am a Christian, then I am an evangelical, then I am a Mennonite. I think for many being a Latter-day Saint is their first and only identity. So I don't doubt that what I say about my triage of my own personal faith identity confuses them.

I fully acknowledge that I have much less certitude about many things than some other Christians have. However, I hunger and thirst after the waterbrooks just like the deer of the Book of Psalms and of A.W. Tozer, the great Christian and Missionary Alliance minister who wrote so beautifully about the same.

[Navidad]

19 hours ago, Paloma said:

Navidad, I find such a beautiful generosity of spirit ... and spirit of love and inclusion ... in your posts.  There's so much in your writing that resonates with me.  (And I find it interesting that we have certain points of connection ... mission work in Africa, when I was serving with AEF that later merged with SIM ... I served on the Canadian Board of both AEF and SIM for many years, and have friends within AIM ... like you, I have a Mennonite connection and love foot washing ... and I identify with the peace position, both the conscientious objector stance and actively working for peaceful rather than violent solutions ... and like you, I have a deep love for people of the LDS faith that's rooted in my relationships with them.  And the most profound way I find kinship with you is in your central, all-encompassing belief  that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life.  I love that you say:  "I have very little need to be right; to have the only truth.  I have Christ.  He is my truth.  I have enough challenge living a Christ-honoring life as it is.")

As I was reading your post above, two thoughts from my post-grad Seminary days (distinct from what LDS understand as Seminary!) came to me.  The first was during the first day of a course in Systematic Theology when the professor cautioned us to approach our study with great humility, because "we're all full of a thousand heresies".

And the second relates to a paper I wrote for my Minor Prophets course on "The Knowledge of Yahweh in Hosea and Amos".  "To know (Hebrew "yada') God" is rooted in covenant relationship and requires exclusive loyalty and heart obedience to the Lord.  The natural outgrowth of this is lives marked by love and faithfulness, compassion and justice.  Or, for short, love God and love people!

For you and for me, I see, exclusive loyalty to the Lord results, almost paradoxically, in a robust and joyfully inclusive embrace of others whose hearts incline to the Lord.  

My earliest upbringing was in a Calvinist tradition that was also evangelical and inclusive.  (Maybe that'll blow the socks off some LDS folk who like to try and 'categorize' our many, many {crazy !!!???} distinctions!)

I love the title of Brian McLaren's book - A Generous Orthodoxy: WHY I AM A missional + evangelical + post/protestant + liberal/conservative + mystical/poetic + biblical + charismatic/contemplative + fundamentalist/calvinist + anabaptist/anglican + methodist + catholic + green + incarnational + depressed -yet-hopeful + emergent + unfinished CHRISTIAN.

I also love Clark Pinnock's book, A Wideness in God's Mercy.

And I see your presence on this board as a gift (though, of course, who am I to say that, since I'm a non-LDS Christian 'guest' here, and a very rare poster at that!).

 

 

Hi: I appreciate your kind post. I am in a hotel (traveling again to speak) and my laptop is giving me fits. I will have to post much more later. We have very much i common and I don't even know of which denomination if any, you are a member! And which it is, is of no importance to me. I have Pinnock's book on my desk right now. I am reading it again for the 13th time. I have much in common with McLaren. I served my mission with SIM and served on the US Council and the International Council of AIM where we had missionaries from 14 countries and perhaps 60 denominations (as I remember). It was both a challenge and a delight to get together in Nairobi at the mission guest house and discuss differences and similarities into the early morning hours. Some of my LDS friends have sympathy for me because I can't possibly know what it is like to be on a mission. I smile and just listen.

Anyway, more later. My keyboard is possessed by some power beyond that of my fingers. It skips  here and there of its own accord. Thanks again for your kind words.

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hi Jane: I have been traveling all day. Sorry for failing to reply. I think I understand your Stance A; I do not understand your Stance B. So I will offer a stance C as my position. - Christians should all get along peacefully. Yes, there are differences among Christians but many of them are not worth arguing or bickering about, abusing the other for holding, or worse yet, using them as an excuse to deny the other the role or label of "Christian" in its fullest sense. Yes, I do believe many of the differences do not matter in the eternal scheme of things. Don't you? Church polity (government), belief in the creeds (as opposed to what they contain), the number of the ordinances - I am told Saints have had as many as 17; Mennonites have 4 or 5, whether the millenium is literal or metaphorical, etc. Yes, many of the differences are about things we cannot "know" on this side of the veil. Don't you faith things that you don't know? Faith is the right word for us to use because we, in fact often don't "know" for sure. To use the British construct, we "faith" things. Some are critical to the Christian faith, some are not. Many Christians cannot even agree on what those are.

I believe we need to learn to honor each other's faith in Christ and not let these lesser issues (understanding that we won't even agree on which are lesser) divide us as Christians. I advocate for much more humility in our certitude. Certainly not everything can be faithed with certitude; then it isn't faith any more. When members of this or that group are certain about everything, they make the rest of us searchers, seekers, and strugglers less than. I also think they deceive themselves. I have no idea where this concept of the trash comes from. The most exciting, stimulating and challenging things about Christianity outside of the story of redemption are our differences. Both our differences and our similarities are worth celebrating; i simply prefer to focus on our similarities. I hate however when our differences divide us, and of course, in some cases where our similarities divide us!

I have never served my denomination in a national capacity but I have served several inter-faith groups in international capacities. That is what I enjoy. I have said it publicly in sermons, and to you all on this forum on a number of occasions: I am a Christian, then I am an evangelical, then I am a Mennonite. I think for many being a Latter-day Saint is their first and only identity. So I don't doubt that what I say about my triage of my own personal faith identity confuses them.

I fully acknowledge that I have much less certitude about many things than some other Christians have. However, I hunger and thirst after the waterbrooks just like the deer of the Book of Psalms and of A.W. Tozer, the great Christian and Missionary Alliance minister who wrote so beautifully about the same.

I believe God longs after the soul that longs after Him.

Your words in your last paragraph remind me of a song i performed many years ago in my university choir: "Like as the hart desireth the waterbrooks" (1941) by Herbert Howells. It is a contemplative and solemn piece on Psalms 42 you mention. Here is a nice version of it:

 

 

[MiserereNobis]

On 10/28/2018 at 5:37 PM, Navidad said:

I agree God has one truth - Christ's atonement and the sufficiency of that coupled with our repentance. That is His truth that is found in every major Christian branch including the LDS branch. I have no idea why you would say that my view is that truth doesn't matter. Of course it does and it is found in Christianity. Congregationalism, Methodism, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Catholicism are branches of Christianity; I certainly don't disregard any of them. They each contain "the truth." They also contain other things like "love for the Eucharist," love for "peacemaking," love for "a congregational form of government," "love for the family" that are special ingredients in their faith that differentiates. The Christian "truth" remains the same - the essence of the fruit for each branch. Nothing else but that truth produces fruit. Each Christian faith group has its distinctives, they are precious to that group, but those distinctives are not what constitutes the fruit. I once heard a very distinctive LDS scholar speak about the patriotism and willingness to go to war of the LDS Christians during WWI. They had very few conscientious objectors. That patriotism  was a distinctive, but it isn't salvific. My group, the Mennonites created the conscientious objector movement in WWI. They refused to fight, were jailed and often beat up or otherwise abused because of it. That same sense today is a distinctive of the Mennonite faith. It is a distinctive, but it isn't salvific. Christ said, "I am the way, the TRUTH, and the Life. He is the truth! I hope that helps clarify what I do believe about the difference between distinctives and truth.

But this is not what Catholicism teaches. Yes, we accept your baptism as a valid Christian baptism, but it ends there. The full truth is in the Catholic Church. Protestants are missing the full truth.

So while this quote may state your beliefs, it doesn't state the beliefs of the "branches." In fact, in Catholicism, we would say that the Catholic Church is the tree and that protestants have chosen to break off from the tree. You may be a branch, but you are not connected to the full grace of the Christian Church.

I keep pushing back against your ideas because you tend to present them as the Christian view, but the Roman Catholic Church, the largest Christian Church, doesn't agree with your ideas. The Sacraments of the Catholic Church are not just distinctive, they are the source of saving grace and they are only available through the Catholic Church. That is the position of Catholicism.

[MiserereNobis]

On 10/28/2018 at 10:18 PM, Navidad said:

They thought they found more "truth" in the non-essentials.

Again, in Catholicism, what you say are "non-essentials" are actually essentials. I'm just pointing out that Catholicism disagree with your claims. We do not consider the Catholic Church and protestant churches equal in either truth or the ability to save.