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

[Navidad]

17 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

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.

Good early morning: I don't present my views as "the Christian view." I present them in terms of my view. I doubt that very many agree with my view; but it is my view and I will continue to espouse it because I think it honors the Christian church as a whole, solves many religious conflicts (which is very important to me), and is historically accurate (when looking at Christianity through a broader lens that simply from the eyes or one group or another. I do think there are Catholics in that sense who are much like Latter-day Saints and other groups that place their individual church affiliation higher on the taxonomy of faith than that of being a Christian. That leads to pride in one's group; it also leads to internecine (not Nicene!😊) bitterness, jealousy, warfare, and needs to convert. Perhaps I should differentiate when I am speaking for a Protestant perspective and for my own perspective. Except in my formal writings in a Mexican context, I never attempt to explain Catholicism. The Catholic Church here in Mexico is unique in some ways. It is popular, local, and highly individual. It is often syncretistic and almost always local. The hierarchy is distant, far away, and foreign. That is another subject. You can push back on my theory; that helps me grow; but not because I think I speak for Christianity; I am deluded, but not that deluded!

[Navidad]

18 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

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.

See my post above. I agree with all that you are saying; in this context I speak only for myself in this context. I am curious however, what beliefs that you hold are considered "non-essentials?" Are there any equivalent to a Mennonite's belief in peace, foot-washing, head coverings for women, certain cultural views of worldliness, etc? I would love to ask the same question of my Latter-day Saint Christian friends. Are any LDS beliefs non--essentials - distinctives of Latter-day Saintness, but not really thought to be necessary for all Christians to hold, especially to ensure eternal life (in either meaning) with the Father?

Just to be clear, I do believe every Christian faith shares certain views that are essential for being called a Christian. Then equally, all of them hold what I term distinctive beliefs that may be cultural, historically derived, or even scripturally derived, but yet are not essential for salvation. For example in Sacrament meeting Sunday I heard about the "laws of tithing, fasting, and the word of wisdom." I had never heard the word of wisdom termed a "law" before. I wonder if all three laws are necessary for both salvation and exaltation? The latter (word of wisdom) certainly is distinctive; although when I grew up we just called it "the things you avoid so your daddy doesn't whomp you up the side of your head and call you worldy" stuff. I think fasting has a different significance for Saints than for Mennonites, but I am still learning about that. Tithing is certainly not salvific, but it might be necessary for exaltation in an LDS sense. I know nothing about the three in a Catholic sense.

 

Edited October 31, 2018 by Navidad

[RevTestament]

12 hours ago, Navidad said:

See my post above. I agree with all that you are saying; in this context I speak only for myself in this context. I am curious however, what beliefs that you hold are considered "non-essentials?" Are there any equivalent to a Mennonite's belief in peace, foot-washing, head coverings for women, certain cultural views of worldliness, etc? I would love to ask the same question of my Latter-day Saint Christian friends. Are any LDS beliefs non--essentials - distinctives of Latter-day Saintness, but not really thought to be necessary for all Christians to hold, especially to ensure eternal life (in either meaning) with the Father?

Just to be clear, I do believe every Christian faith shares certain views that are essential for being called a Christian. Then equally, all of them hold what I term distinctive beliefs that may be cultural, historically derived, or even scripturally derived, but yet are not essential for salvation. For example in Sacrament meeting Sunday I heard about the "laws of tithing, fasting, and the word of wisdom." I had never heard the word of wisdom termed a "law" before. I wonder if all three laws are necessary for both salvation and exaltation? The latter (word of wisdom) certainly is distinctive; although when I grew up we just called it "the things you avoid so your daddy doesn't whomp you up the side of your head and call you worldy" stuff. I think fasting has a different significance for Saints than for Mennonites, but I am still learning about that. Tithing is certainly not salvific, but it might be necessary for exaltation in an LDS sense. I know nothing about the three in a Catholic sense.

I will speak to one thing: the word of wisdom. You can find it in D&C 89, https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/89?lang=eng

In verse 2 it expressly says it is not given by commandment or constraint. However, I recall a lesson this last year in which it got described as a commandment. That is just incorrect. We are expected to abide by it to enter the temple, but for most of us that is only to do work  for our dead. I believe following the word of wisdom is essential in receiving some of the blessings promised in temple ordinances. Certain norms about it have become so strong, however, that many treat it like drinking a cup of tea is a sin, when it is not. However, as science has progressed, it has affirmed the truths of the word of wisdom - no amount of alcohol is good for us. Further, tobacco has been shown to be harmful if used internally. Daily habitual doses of caffeine have been shown to stimulate cortisol production. I believe this leads to several il-health effects. Further, it has been shown that fiber and plant nutrients are important in our diet, so meat should be eaten sparingly - something the Church doesn't really seem to bring up. I eat it normally once per day. I have never been faced with famine, so I don't need to worry with making meat my meal three times per day. Then the issue becomes limiting the intake of simple carbs. That leaves other nutrients and complex carbs as the key to our health or the "staff of life" - nuts, seeds, berries, vegetables and fruits. You man note that most of these involve plant foods in which the plant has concentrated nutrients. Ideally, the meat should include seafoods, although that is getting harder to do safely. I don't consider those to be included in "meat." There is something else interesting about the word of wisdom. It is a large chiasm.   

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I will speak to one thing: the word of wisdom. You can find it in D&C 89, https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/89?lang=eng

In verse 2 it expressly says it is not given by commandment or constraint. However, I recall a lesson this last year in which it got described as a commandment. That is just incorrect. We are expected to abide by it to enter the temple, but for most of us that is only to do work  for our dead. I believe following the word of wisdom is essential in receiving some of the blessings promised in temple ordinances. Certain norms about it have become so strong, however, that many treat it like drinking a cup of tea is a sin, when it is not. However, as science has progressed, it has affirmed the truths of the word of wisdom - no amount of alcohol is good for us. Further, tobacco has been shown to be harmful if used internally. Daily habitual doses of caffeine have been shown to stimulate cortisol production. I believe this leads to several il-health effects. Further, it has been shown that fiber and plant nutrients are important in our diet, so meat should be eaten sparingly - something the Church doesn't really seem to bring up. I eat it normally once per day. I have never been faced with famine, so I don't need to worry with making meat my meal three times per day. Then the issue becomes limiting the intake of simple carbs. That leaves other nutrients and complex carbs as the key to our health or the "staff of life" - nuts, seeds, berries, vegetables and fruits. You man note that most of these involve plant foods in which the plant has concentrated nutrients. Ideally, the meat should include seafoods, although that is getting harder to do safely. I don't consider those to be included in "meat." There is something else interesting about the word of wisdom. It is a large chiasm.   

Thanks great post. I haven't heard the word chiasm in years! That is what I like about this forum. You never know what someone is going to say!

[Jane_Doe]

On 10/29/2018 at 8:22 PM, 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.

Both stances want all Christians to get along peacefully and acknowledge each other as Christians-- that's a common point.  The difference between Stance A & B is how differences are treated: (A) values them and thinks they are important, (B) dismisses them as not important and possibly a nuence.

On 10/29/2018 at 8:22 PM, Navidad said:

 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.

That core is common to A & B, so it's not really helpful.  Do you prize differences or dismiss them?  (I know this is addressed later in your post, I'm just thinking aloud here)

On 10/29/2018 at 8:22 PM, Navidad said:

 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.

This is the difference between A and B-- are the differences important and should they be valued?

Me (A): All beliefs (even the non-salvific ones) are important and differences should be cherished.  Yes, there are some things a seeker can indeed learn and know.

You (B): differences do not matter.  We can't know.  

B... I really just find it dismissive of many beautiful beliefs in Christendom. 

On 10/29/2018 at 8:22 PM, Navidad said:

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.

Again, getting along is a common core of both stances.

On 10/29/2018 at 8:22 PM, Navidad said:

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!

Why not celebrate both similarities and differences?  

I hear you saying "Both our differences and our similarities are worth celebrating"  but... I don't see you celebrating the differences at all.  Several points you do seem to complain about them or see them as something to be dismissed.    I've tried to illustrate a number of ways I do celebrate the differences between faiths.  

[Navidad]

11 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Both stances want all Christians to get along peacefully and acknowledge each other as Christians-- that's a common point.  The difference between Stance A & B is how differences are treated: (A) values them and thinks they are important, (B) dismisses them as not important and possibly a nuence.

That core is common to A & B, so it's not really helpful.  Do you prize differences or dismiss them?  (I know this is addressed later in your post, I'm just thinking aloud here)

This is the difference between A and B-- are the differences important and should they be valued?

Me (A): All beliefs (even the non-salvific ones) are important and differences should be cherished.  Yes, there are some things a seeker can indeed learn and know.

You (B): differences do not matter.  We can't know.  

B... I really just find it dismissive of many beautiful beliefs in Christendom. 

Again, getting along is a common core of both stances.

Why not celebrate both similarities and differences?  

I hear you saying "Both our differences and our similarities are worth celebrating"  but... I don't see you celebrating the differences at all.  Several points you do seem to complain about them or see them as something to be dismissed.    I've tried to illustrate a number of ways I do celebrate the differences between faiths.  

The greatest way to honor and celebrate our non-essential differences is to not argue, bicker, or disagree about them. The highest ranking LD S leader in our area goes straight to the Diet Dr.Pepper when he comes to our house. Others won't touch it! Worth disagreeing about? I think not. I honor their disagreement as they do. They simply ignore it. 

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

The greatest way to honor and celebrate our non-essential differences is to not argue, bicker, or disagree about them. The highest ranking LD S leader in our area goes straight to the Diet Dr.Pepper when he comes to our house. Others won't touch it! Worth disagreeing about? I think not. I honor their disagreement as they do. They simply ignore it. 

That's ignoring them, not celebrating.  How would you feel if you went to a birthday party and someone told you "the best way to celebrate you is to not argue about your existence."  No cake, no song, no party at all.  Just not arguing.

Rather, I'd rather throw a big party and celebrate every different group of beliefs.  I do not share many different beliefs in Christendom, but I can celebrate with a Methodist family baptizing their infant.  I can admire much about a Catholic's devotion to the Eucharist.  I can praise Mennonite courage to refuse to fight in war.  I rock out to some great Evangelical praise music.  That's celebrating, that's honoring.  

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

That's ignoring them, not celebrating.  How would you feel if you went to a birthday party and someone told you "the best way to celebrate you is to not argue about your existence."  No cake, no song, no party at all.  Just not arguing.

Rather, I'd rather throw a big party and celebrate every different group of beliefs.  I do not share many different beliefs in Christendom, but I can celebrate with a Methodist family baptizing their infant.  I can admire much about a Catholic's devotion to the Eucharist.  I can praise Mennonite courage to refuse to fight in war.  I rock out to some great Evangelical praise music.  That's celebrating, that's honoring.  

I couldn't agree more. I do all those things too. All I am saying is that I don't want to argue about them That is not the same as ignoring them. Somehow we are talking past each other, perhaps saying the same thing. 

[Jane_Doe]

37 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I couldn't agree more. I do all those things too. All I am saying is that I don't want to argue about them That is not the same as ignoring them. Somehow we are talking past each other, perhaps saying the same thing. 

Not arguing: you have my agreement there.  For example, I'm on a number of generic Christian forums as well.  When someone wants to obviously Mormon bash, I politely exit the conversation.   No one's mind is going to change with arguing and it's a waste of time (at best) and (more commonly) only drives wedges.  That's not to save the issue isn't important-- like I have people who want to mock the idea I believe in a God, and I'll decline the invitation to argue. 

I've likewise seen you decline an invitation to argue on this forum.  That I do admire about you.

 

 

Celebrating: I'm a fan of this.  I do do this-- and hope that the non-LDS people on here are able to hear my admiration of the many good things about their faith.  

I... maybe part of my confusion here is I've missed the part where you've been celebrating the distinctiveness of other faiths as something special to be cherish.  I probably missed it somewhere.

Edited November 1, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

Not arguing: you have my agreement there.  For example, I'm on a number of generic Christian forums as well.  When someone wants to obviously Mormon bash, I politely exit the conversation.   No one's mind is going to change with arguing and it's a waste of time (at best) and (more commonly) only drives wedges.  That's not to save the issue isn't important-- like I have people who want to mock the idea I believe in a God, and I'll decline the invitation to argue. 

I've likewise seen you decline an invitation to argue on this forum.  That I do admire about you.

 

 

Celebrating: I'm a fan of this.  I do do this-- and hope that the non-LDS people on here are able to hear my admiration of the many good things about their faith.  

I... maybe part of my confusion here is I've missed the part where you've been celebrating the distinctiveness of other faiths as something special to be cherish.  I probably missed it somewhere.

Hi Jane: I respect you so much. You probably haven't missed anything. I just take the celebration part for granted . . . after all I have faithfully attended every service, fellowship, conference of the Latter-day Saints for over a year now! We have been to, and enjoyed every celebration. In December we have a big community Christmas concert for the greater Nuevo Casas Grandes community. That will be a celebration. I am singing in the Mormon Community Choir and have been asked to sing a solo in German, backed by the choir to honor the Mennonite attendees. That is a wonderful inter-faith opportunity. I also go to quinceanera, bridal, and funeral masses; at least one every two weeks. We celebrate all the local Catholic holidays here, and believe me in Mexico there are many. I was invited to sit up front for the mass and celebration for the 25th anniversary of our local priest's ordination. As superintendent of schools in a large district in San Diego, I went to everything and once, as deputy superintendent even saved our entire class of 5th graders' (probably 6,000 children) ability to tour the Mormon Battalion Museum in Old Town over our resident fundamentalists' objection! Thanks for your kind replies. best, Phil

 

Edited November 1, 2018 by Navidad

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Navidad said:

The greatest way to honor and celebrate our non-essential differences is to not ...disagree about them. 

Define "disagree", please.  Recognizing differences exist but being okay that others choose to do things differently or pretending the differences don't exist or something else?

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Define "disagree", please.  Recognizing differences exist but being okay that others choose to do things differently or pretending the differences don't exist or something else?

"Recognizing differences exist but being okay that other choose to do or think or believe things differently!" That is it!  I have said a dozen times on this forum that I believe the very core, basic essentials of Christianity are vital. Other than that we celebrate differences when that opportunity arises. If someone wants to fight over them we don't take the bait.  And we have enough self-perspective to understand which beliefs are essential and which are not within the world of Christianity.

 

[Jane_Doe]

40 minutes ago, Navidad said:

"Recognizing differences exist but being okay that other choose to do or think or believe things differently!" That is it!  I have said a dozen times on this forum that I believe the very core, basic essentials of Christianity are vital. Other than that we celebrate differences when that opportunity arises. If someone wants to fight over them we don't take the bait.  And we have enough self-perspective to understand which beliefs are essential and which are not within the world of Christianity.

 

I'm very happy to hear you say this but... are you ok still celebrating if someone thinks that differences are important and what people to adopt view X?  (Assuming of course everyone is acknowledging everyone else is Christian and behaving peacefully/with charity).

For example @MiserereNobis would love it if I converted to Catholicism.  He's always respectful and peaceful, and acknowledges my relationship with Christ (even if there's complications with RCC acknowledging that).  I have zero problem with him wanting me to be Catholic-- in fact I am honored by his thoughts there.

Edited November 2, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[MiserereNobis]

On 10/31/2018 at 5:27 AM, Navidad said:

I am curious however, what beliefs that you hold are considered "non-essentials?"

Oops, I misunderstood the question. Let me revise.

Anything that's not a dogma would be non-essential. By definition, a dogma is essential. Dogmas come from the declarations of ecumenical councils and popes when speaking ex-cathedra. The dogmas are summed up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

There are some non-essential liturgies, such as: novenas, stations of the cross, praying the rosary

While non-essential, they shouldn't be overlooked because of the sanctifying grace they can bring.

Some non-essential beliefs: the various Marian apparitions, limbo (never declared dogma)

Edited November 2, 2018 by MiserereNobis

[3DOP]

changed my mind fast

Edited November 2, 2018 by 3DOP

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

changed my mind fast

Nice seeing you here anyway. 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

I'm very happy to hear you say this but... are you ok still celebrating if someone thinks that differences are important and what people to adopt view X?  (Assuming of course everyone is acknowledging everyone else is Christian and behaving peacefully/with charity).

For example @MiserereNobis would love it if I converted to Catholicism.  He's always respectful and peaceful, and acknowledges my relationship with Christ (even if there's complications with RCC acknowledging that).  I have zero problem with him wanting me to be Catholic-- in fact I am honored by his thoughts there.

I am not sure what my answer is to your question. If someone "would love it" if you changed to their way of thinking but still "would love you" if you didn't, I think that is fine and very human.

[Jane_Doe]

17 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am not sure what my answer is to your question. If someone "would love it" if you changed to their way of thinking but still "would love you" if you didn't, I think that is fine and very human.

I care for  @MiserereNobis, despite him not being LDS (though that would be awesome if he wanted to be LDS).  My charity for him is not dependent on him agreeing with me about theology.  I am actually honored when he shares his views with me.  And I feel that he cares for me, even with me saying "no thank you" to the want-to-join-Catholicism offer.

To me this is good: we acknowledge the difference between us, still get along, can actively care enough to share with each other, and celebrate the different things of different faiths.  I admire a lot about the Catholic faith.

Edited November 2, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[Navidad]

7 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I care for  @MiserereNobis, despite him not being LDS (though that would be awesome if he wanted to be LDS).  My charity for him is not dependent on him agreeing with me about theology.  I am actually honored when he shares his views with me.  And I feel that he cares for me, even with me saying "no thank you" to the want-to-join-Catholicism offer.

To me this is good: we acknowledge the difference between us, still get along, can actively care enough to share with each other, and celebrate the different things of different faiths.  I admire a lot about the Catholic faith.

Jane: I agree again with everything you have written. But lets just say MN acknowledges that a belief in the appearance of the Virgin Mary to the peasant Juan Diego outside of Mexico City in 1531 is not an essential in Catholic belief. Yet he turns around and says to you, as some Mexican Catholics might, you must believe in it to be considered a Christian and to experience heaven. Would you argue with him? Would you debate it? Would you celebrate that belief? That is a better example of the kinds of things I am talking about than him wanting you to convert to Catholicism which is anything but a non-essential request. My whole focus has been on non-essentials. I believe there are many in every faith, including Mennonitism and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Sometimes it exhibits itself in, if you believe yours or if you don't believe ours, you are not a Christian. That is what I think makes God cry.

To me it is like if I were to say to you, you don't believe in foot washing or in our founder Menno Simons, therefore you are not a Christian; or - You believe in spirit Children, or in Scriptures besides the Bible, therefore you are not a Christian. I believe all four of those beliefs are irrelevant to being a Christian, therefore I think if someone tries to posit something different, they should be ignored, rather than be argued with. Maybe I am back in trouble with you now, but that is the best kind of example of what I am talking about I can give you at the moment. I don't believe in spirit children or in scriptures other than the Bible, but I would never make disbelief in either of those a condition for eternal life with God or for being a Christian, nor would I celebrate those who do.

[3DOP]

Hi cal, MN, and everybody.

How do we define essential? Language is fIuid and I only have a subjective answer. There is this saying that has gained popularity over the last few centuries from a Lutheran. I can't remember how the Latin goes that he used. "In essentials unity, in non-essentials diversity, in all things charity."

Cal, our old friend Dave Waltz has been running a series of articles at his blog on unity from different perspectives. He started with an LDS point of view, which reminded me of Barry Bickmore, who I think we knew at the UTLM board. I haven't heard anything about him for years.

He begins with the prayer of our Lord in Jn.17, where Jesus prays that those who follow Him would be one with each other as He is one with the Father. We have been exploring what that means ecclesiastically. So far, there hasn't been any LDS participation, unless you count what Dave and I say in favor of the consistency of the LDS approach to eliminating the Catholic Church from qualification as being the one true church. I am sure Dave would welcome you or anybody here, LDS or not,  to review the articles and replies with a view to participating. I will leave a link at the end of the post.

I would suggest that if anything comes between those claiming to follow Christ so great that it prohibits them from worshipping together and obeying the same ecclesiastical authorities, that it is by definition essential. Can we break the unity for which Christ prayed over a non-essential? For Mormons or others like me, who think orthopraxy is important, this seems like a pretty good measure. I have sung the same song for the last almost twenty years here and at ZLMB. Can we claim to have essential unity with someone who has such different beliefs or practices that we can't even go to church with?

Take a peek at Dave's (not Catholic) blog if you like:

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/

God bless,

Rory

 

 

Edited November 4, 2018 by 3DOP

[Calm]

Quote

All that matters to me is eternal Rome. 

And that is wonderful imo.

Eternity is God's domain and we should hunger to live in it.

I don't believe I have changed my own perceptions of prophets and church history very much over the years in general, but it is possible I have changed the way I speak about it.

What change has occurred has been in the positive direction as I have learn more about leaders as individuals and they are no longer the stickmen of my youth that I associated with limited feelings (often arrogance; you need significant confidence from somewhere to call people to repentance and confidence can often be confuse with arrogance by me).

Edited November 3, 2018 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

On 11/1/2018 at 8:43 PM, Navidad said:

But lets just say MN acknowledges that a belief in the appearance of the Virgin Mary to the peasant Juan Diego outside of Mexico City in 1531 is not an essential in Catholic belief. Yet he turns around and says to you, as some Mexican Catholics might, you must believe in it to be considered a Christian and to experience heaven.

Luckily, the Catholic Church being what it is (a lover of systematics), there is a ranking of what is essential and how much you have to believe. Here is a good summary:

Quote

The theological certainties of all teachings, from the divine revelation to the least certain veritas catholica, are ranked as follows:^[22]

• De fide (from the Faith): the highest degree of certainty, considered part of the divine revelation and infallibly asserted.
• Fides ecclesiastica (the Faith of the Church): Church teachings that have been definitively decided on by the Magisterium in an infallible manner.
• Sententia fidei proxima (teaching proximate to the Faith): Church teachings that are generally accepted as divine revelation but not defined as such by the Magisterium.
• sententia ad fidem pertinens, or sententia theologice certa (teaching pertinent to the faith, or theologically certain teaching): Church teachings that the Magisterium clearly decided for, albeit without claiming infallibility.
• Sententia communis (common teaching): teachings which are popular but within the filtered range of theological research.
• Sententia probabilis (probable teaching): teachings with a low degree of certainty. Those of this certainty which are considered "in agreement with the consciousness of the Faith of the Church" are called sententia pia (pious opinion).
• Sententia bene fundata (well founded teaching): teaching that is well reasoned but does not, however, rise to being called probable.
• Opinio tolerata (tolerated opinion): opinion tolerated, but discouraged, within the Church.

The Virgin of Guadalupe is a Marian apparition declared worthy of belief, but it is not required (as declared by the Church), so a Mexican Catholic who says you have to believe it is not correct.

Quote

My whole focus has been on non-essentials. I believe there are many in every faith, including Mennonitism and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Sometimes it exhibits itself in, if you believe yours or if you don't believe ours, you are not a Christian. That is what I think makes God cry.

The issue comes down to the details, then. What is essential and non-essential? Catholicism has many dogmatically declared essential beliefs and practices that protestants do not have. We cannot unify and ignore the essentials, because the essentials are the truth. If Catholicism is what it claims it is, the Church of Christ, then our duty is clear: we must share this with the protestants in hopes of their coming home to Rome.

We have foot washing, too, by the way. On Maundy Thursday of Holy Week, the bishop washes the feet of select individuals as part of the Mass. See, you can join us and still have foot washing as part of the liturgy  

 

 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

On 10/30/2018 at 10:36 AM, MiserereNobis said:

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.

And it's odd that he cannot understand "Mormon exclusivity" when after all the Catholics invented it. 

No we did not break off from you guys- arguably- but we certainly understand competing claims of exclusive authority

That's one of the reasons I have never been able to figure out Protestantism- on one hand each denomination stresses one doctrine over another defends those doctrines vigorously.  There are entire boards on which Protestants argue about baptism and it's necessity

Certainly one side thinks they are right while the other is wrong.  It's like someone took the "Glass of Truth" and shattered it and now everyone is arguing that they have a bigger piece than the others when they are the ones who broke the glass in the first place

I don't get it.   So much for "one faith one baptism"

 

[Storm Rider]

8 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hi cal, MN, and everybody.

How do we define essential? Language is fIuid and I only have a subjective answer. There is this saying that has gained popularity over the last few centuries from a Lutheran. I can't remember how the Latin goes that he used. "In essentials unity, in non-essentials diversity, in all things charity."

Cal, our old friend Dave Waltz has been running a series of articles at his blog on unity from different perspectives. He started with an LDS point of view, which reminded me of Barry Bickmore, who I think we knew at the UTLM board. I haven't heard anything about him for years.

He begins with the prayer of our Lord in Jn.17, where Jesus prays that those who follow Him would be one with each other as He is one with the Father. We have been exploring what that means ecclesiastically. So far, there hasn't been any LDS participation, unless you count what Dave and I say in favor of the consistency of the LDS approach to eliminating the Catholic Church from qualification as being the one true church. I am sure Dave would welcome you or anybody here, LDS or not,  to review the articles and replies with a view to participating. I will leave a link at the end of the post.

I would suggest that if anything comes between those claiming to follow Christ so great that it prohibits them from worshipping together and obeying the same ecclesiastical authorities, that it is by definition essential. Can we break the unity for which Christ prayed over a non-essential? For Mormons or others like me, who think orthopraxy is important, this seems like a pretty good measure. I have sung the same song for the last almost twenty years here and at ZLMB. Can we claim to have essential unity with someone who has such different beliefs or practices that we can't even go to church with?

On a personal note, I am touched to be missed. On the other hand I admit I have felt hurt, misunderstood, and undefended by some who should have taken my side a little bit when I made my last new topic called "My New Mormonism". It kind of confirmed that I didn't have much in common with anybody here anymore, even though I felt a closeness to late 20th Century "internet Mormons" and into the next millenium. And then this kid shows up that talks about how he doesn't give a rodent's behind if history supports Mormonism. He will believe what only anti-Mormons used to believe and still be LDS. I was critical of it. It seemed naive. Such a short sighted view isn't going to last for a decade, let alone a lifetime. I haven't moved since ZLMB. Institutional Catholicism (modern Rome) has moved, and I don't. All that matters to me is eternal Rome. It doesn't matter what century I happen to live in. Institutional Mormonism has moved, and I was savaged for pointing out what seems obvious to me, that "internet Mormons" now accept what only "anti-Mormons" used to say. For instance, that racism was behind the priesthood ban. Maybe I was gullible, but I thought the LDS apologists with which I was familiar in the 90's and shortly after defended your church against racism. Nope. I was wrong. Old Mormons were racist according to modern Mormons. Lets just throw the LDS fathers overboard like we do the Catholic fathers. Every inquisition and crusade is indefensible according to "My New Catholicism".

I wouldn't live in any other era. But I feel so alone among those who don't care if their positions cut them off from all their beautiful heritage, whether they be Catholic or LDS. 

Anyway...I am rambling...its probably the vodka speaking. God love you all, and if I don't hit delete again, if am not too embarrassed, maybe I'll try to talk now and again. 

Take a peek at Dave's (not Catholic) blog if you like:

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/

God bless,

Rory

7

7

7

7

Rory, you have been missed and I have always enjoyed your comments here. I am reading, "Noble Beauty; Transcendent Holiness" by Peter Kwasniewski about the Latin Mass. So interesting to learn more about the mass, its changes, and the desire and importance many feel to return to the mass that was until II Vatican. I can't tell you how many times I thought of you while reading it.

Edited November 4, 2018 by Storm Rider

[mfbukowski]

On 10/31/2018 at 4:27 AM, Navidad said:

I had never heard the word of wisdom termed a "law" before. I wonder if all three laws are necessary for both salvation and exaltation?

You see this is the sort of thing I am shocked to see in your posts."

The answer is easily found in our most elementary book on doctrine, "Gospel Principles" which is taught every Sunday in Sunday School in regular wards for investigators and those who are not members who want to learn more.

I cannot imagine that you are not aware of this volume and because you are I have truly questioned the leadership of your ward that you would not be encouraged to attend this class and take the missionary lessons.

So here is the link to your question and with it, a link to the book itself which I suggest you study.

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/06195_eng.pdf?lang=eng

Quote

We must obey the Word of Wisdom to be worthy to enter the temple. If we do not obey the Word of Wisdom, the Lord’s Spirit withdraws from us. If we defile the “temple of God,” which is our body, we hurt ourselves physically and spiritually

Since one cannot enter the temple without following the WoW then one cannot receive the ordinances of exaltation - without which one may be "saved" in a Christian sense but not "Exalted" in the view of the COJCLDS.

I would suggest that you look up doctrinal questions like these in this volume so you are more acquainted with our beliefs regarding the basics.