bluebell Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Navidad said: I guess I will respectfully point out that the Church sets the conditions that must be followed. So you are right that "God does not keep anyone out of the celestial kingdom" One must follow the conditions that, in all the Christian community around the world, only the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has set. The temple and celestial kingdom restrictions are a classic result of the "onlyism" that the Church has created to heal the wounds of its collective persecution. I love my friends in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but when four-tenths of one percent of the Christians in the world claim that God speaks his conditions only to them, and not to any other, I must break ranks and respectfully disagree with them. The church believes that it is only doing what God Himself as required. Which other Christian communities have temples? It seems like trying to compare a Christian community with a Latter-day Saint temple is like trying to compare apples to oranges. 3
Rain Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 2 hours ago, Navidad said: I guess I will respectfully point out that the Church sets the conditions that must be followed. So you are right that "God does not keep anyone out of the celestial kingdom" 0must follow the conditions that, in all the Christian community around the world, only the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has set. "One must follow the conditions that, in all the" the world, "only" the Christian religion "has set". 2 hours ago, Navidad said: The temple and celestial kingdom restrictions are a classic result of the "onlyism" that the Church has created to heal the wounds of its collective persecution. I love my friends in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but when four-tenths of one percent of the Christians in the world claim that God speaks his conditions only to them, and not to any other, I must break ranks and respectfully disagree with them. At one time only four tenths of one percent of the people of the world were Christian. They were the only ones who taught the conditions - of believing in Jesus. Would you have disagreed with them because of their small number? Now only 33% of the world, according to a search I just did, are Christian. Still not a majority of people. Where does it begin to be ok that a small percentage are told what the conditions are? 2
Bernard Gui Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Navidad said: I am sorry, I am not sure what your question is? Obviously, I think Philippians 2 is terrific. I don't understand how a member or non-member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would disagree on Philippians 2? It is the essence of the gospel - the Christian gospel as taught by all Christians, including members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If the scripture in Philippians is correct without modification, then God excludes billions of people. Is that not "onlyism?" The Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by the COJCOLDS provides every one who has ever been born the opportunity to be included in God's Kingdom. That is the opposite of "onlyism." Edited January 21, 2019 by Bernard Gui
Navidad Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: If the scripture in Philippians is correct without modification, then God excludes billions of people. Is that not "onlyism?" The Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by the COJCOLDS provides every one who has ever been born the opportunity to be included in God's Kingdom. That is the opposite of "onlyism." We have no idea how many are excluded - and I don't think it is helpful to speculate. I understand that some Christians are exclusivists, but I am not one of them. That is another difference within the community. As with the woman with the issue of blood we discussed several weeks ago in Gospel Doctrine class, "our faith makes us whole." Christ declared the woman was whole by virtue of her faith. The same word is translated "complete" in other contexts. It is clear from the context she had not been baptized and yet she was still whole and complete on the spot based on her faith. What you are describing is universalism based on onlyism. Everyone has the opportunity to be included in God's Kingdom (at some level), but only through the acceptance of a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint ordinance in this world or the next. I feel I am getting perilously close to debating and that is never my intent. I understand however, that within the context of my questions I have made claims and it is fair for the folks here to challenge them. That wasn't my purpose or intent, but I understand.
Bernard Gui Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 4 minutes ago, Navidad said: We have no idea how many are excluded - and I don't think it is helpful to speculate. I understand that some Christians are exclusivists, but I am not one of them. That is another difference within the community. As with the woman with the issue of blood we discussed several weeks ago in Gospel Doctrine class, "our faith makes us whole." Christ declared the woman was whole by virtue of her faith. The same word is translated "complete" in other contexts. It is clear from the context she had not been baptized and yet she was still whole and complete on the spot based on her faith. What you are describing is universalism based on onlyism. Everyone has the opportunity to be included in God's Kingdom (at some level), but only through the acceptance of a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint ordinance in this world or the next. I feel I am getting perilously close to debating and that is never my intent. I understand however, that within the context of my questions I have made claims and it is fair for the folks here to challenge them. That wasn't my purpose or intent, but I understand. OK. What was your purpose in making this statement? Quote The temple and celestial kingdom restrictions are a classic result of the "onlyism" that the Church has created to heal the wounds of its collective persecution. I love my friends in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but when four-tenths of one percent of the Christians in the world claim that God speaks his conditions only to them, and not to any other, I must break ranks and respectfully disagree with them. It can easily be seen as judgmental and confrontational, but you did not intend it to be? Phiippians 2 seems to be the definition of onlyism. How do you see it? Do you equate being healed from an issue of blood (made whole/complete) with salvation/exaltation? What is your scriptural basis for that?
Navidad Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said: OK. What was your purpose in making this statement? It can easily be seen as judgmental and confrontational, but you did not intend it to be? Phiippians 2 seems to be the definition of onlyism. How do you see it? Do you equate being healed from an issue of blood (made whole/complete) with salvation/exaltation? What is your scriptural basis for that? Hi: No I did not intend it to be judgmental and confrontational. I can only indicate what I meant; I cannot change how it was received. I can regret it however. I regret that it came across that way. How I wish we could sometimes turn this forum into a Skype conference, or the like where we could actually dialogue. This type of "I write" then "you write" then I interpret, then you explain, then then then is not conducive to understanding or pardon the expression, "dialogue." It is too monological. Also we come into these discussions with our own baggage and life experiences which help us to interpret what is said by the "other" through our own lenses. Many times experience clarifies our interpretation, but sometimes it distorts it. It is similar to me sitting in Gospel Doctrine Class in the ward and having it taught that only LDS Christians are in the kingdom of God, and that the Church of Jesus Christ is the only true and living church on earth in this dispensation. The teacher didn't mean it to be confrontational, offensive or judgmental. Sitting there as a non-member, it is easy for me to interpret it as such. I have struggled, but come to peace that while I think it is a classic example of LDS onlyism, it is what it is, a sincerely held belief. Perhaps the teacher aimed it at my wife and me, but I'd rather believe he would have said it whether we were there or not. In fact, I am sure he would. Oh, and yes, I believe Christ was telling her that her faith had made her spiritually whole. I believe that was the whole intent of including the account in the gospel. My basis for that is my belief that the scripture, at its very essence is written about how to be spiritually whole. It is not a medical textbook on physical ailments and healing, nor is its focus an emphasis on Christ's ability to physically heal. There is a spiritual element to each account, whether a real life example or a parable. Thanks Bernard, for your always thoughtful posts.
sjdawg Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 On 1/14/2019 at 9:27 AM, halconero said: Best advice I've heard from a sealer, who happens to be a currently serving apostle, was "you two have fun making whoopee tonight" as he walked out of the room. I haven't been a live sealing in a while, but it makes sense. Unless the sealer is a family friend, it seems a bit odd to be getting or giving advice. I find this type of advice a little creepy.
Stargazer Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 (edited) 22 hours ago, Maureen said: I think you're maybe confusing Canada with a different country. In Canada, Latter-day Saints sealings in the temple are recognized as legit wedding ceremonies. Just like all other wedding ceremonies in any other church. You just need to make sure you have a marriage licence and a legit Officiator. M. I may be confused then, due to my son's wedding. He married a non-member in Victoria, BC, and they were first married in front of a civil magistrate and then later had a religious ceremony in front of an ministering elder of the bride's church. From that I assumed that it was like it is in the UK. Now that I think about it, the ministering elder was brought in from California, so would have had no local credentials. I stand corrected. Edited January 21, 2019 by Stargazer
cdowis Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 (edited) On 1/20/2019 at 2:07 PM, changed said: They belong to a different religious group, one I respect very much. It was NOT a decision between my parents and the Lord - the Lord is no respecter of persons, and does not exclude anyone. it was the church's policy, NOT the Lord's policy, which I can clearly see now. Thank you for sharing your personal viewpoint and opinion with us. I have zero interest n arguing with you, except respectfully to point out that we have the right to practice our religion and you have the right to disagree with us. Perhaps we can simply agree to disagree, which you should clearly see. Edited January 21, 2019 by cdowis
Tacenda Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 1 hour ago, sjdawg said: I find this type of advice a little creepy. I wonder which current apostle said it. Any guesses?
bluebell Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 (edited) 34 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I wonder which current apostle said it. Any guesses? It would be interesting to know. Edited January 21, 2019 by bluebell
halconero Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 Not saying. Perhaps some here find it creepy. In the context of his relationship with the couple, and other comments, it didn’t come off that way. 1
Calm Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 (edited) 20 minutes ago, halconero said: Not saying. Perhaps some here find it creepy. In the context of his relationship with the couple, and other comments, it didn’t come off that way. Sometimes newlyweds take themselves too seriously, especially with all the drama.. I like the idea that the sealer is telling them to forget about all that after it's over and just let go and have fun. In our culture, sometimes we find that hard to do, to focused on others' needs or doing the right things for the right reasons in the right way. Edited January 22, 2019 by Calm
Bernard Gui Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 5 hours ago, Navidad said: Hi: No I did not intend it to be judgmental and confrontational. I can only indicate what I meant; I cannot change how it was received. I can regret it however. I regret that it came across that way. How I wish we could sometimes turn this forum into a Skype conference, or the like where we could actually dialogue. This type of "I write" then "you write" then I interpret, then you explain, then then then is not conducive to understanding or pardon the expression, "dialogue." It is too monological. Also we come into these discussions with our own baggage and life experiences which help us to interpret what is said by the "other" through our own lenses. Many times experience clarifies our interpretation, but sometimes it distorts it. It is similar to me sitting in Gospel Doctrine Class in the ward and having it taught that only LDS Christians are in the kingdom of God, and that the Church of Jesus Christ is the only true and living church on earth in this dispensation. The teacher didn't mean it to be confrontational, offensive or judgmental. Sitting there as a non-member, it is easy for me to interpret it as such. I have struggled, but come to peace that while I think it is a classic example of LDS onlyism, it is what it is, a sincerely held belief. Perhaps the teacher aimed it at my wife and me, but I'd rather believe he would have said it whether we were there or not. In fact, I am sure he would. Oh, and yes, I believe Christ was telling her that her faith had made her spiritually whole. I believe that was the whole intent of including the account in the gospel. My basis for that is my belief that the scripture, at its very essence is written about how to be spiritually whole. It is not a medical textbook on physical ailments and healing, nor is its focus an emphasis on Christ's ability to physically heal. There is a spiritual element to each account, whether a real life example or a parable. Thanks Bernard, for your always thoughtful posts. Thanks. Interesting, but you have answered none of my questions.
Navidad Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 21 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Thanks. Interesting, but you have answered none of my questions. Sorry, I thought I answered them one by one. I answered none of them? Wow, I am losing it!
mfbukowski Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 20 hours ago, Navidad said: Sorry, I thought I answered them one by one. I answered none of them? Wow, I am losing it! Nothing about your purpose Nothing about Phillipians Nothing about the woman No scriptures to justify your interpretation I see why he's frustrated.
Navidad Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Nothing about your purpose Nothing about Phillipians Nothing about the woman No scriptures to justify your interpretation I see why he's frustrated. Here were my replies in the thread, both before and after Bernard's several comments - Hi: No I did not intend it to be judgmental and confrontational. I can only indicate what I meant; I cannot change how it was received. I can regret it however. I regret that it came across that way. How I wish we could sometimes turn this forum into a Skype conference, or the like where we could actually dialogue. This type of "I write" then "you write" then I interpret, then you explain, then then then is not conducive to understanding or pardon the expression, "dialogue." It is too monological. Also we come into these discussions with our own baggage and life experiences which help us to interpret what is said by the "other" through our own lenses. Many times experience clarifies our interpretation, but sometimes it distorts it. It is similar to me sitting in Gospel Doctrine Class in the ward and having it taught that only LDS Christians are in the kingdom of God, and that the Church of Jesus Christ is the only true and living church on earth in this dispensation. The teacher didn't mean it to be confrontational, offensive or judgmental. Sitting there as a non-member, it is easy for me to interpret it as such. I have struggled, but come to peace that while I think it is a classic example of LDS onlyism, it is what it is, a sincerely held belief. Perhaps the teacher aimed it at my wife and me, but I'd rather believe he would have said it whether we were there or not. In fact, I am sure he would. Oh, and yes, I believe Christ was telling her that her faith had made her spiritually whole. I believe that was the whole intent of including the account in the gospel. My basis for that is my belief that the scripture, at its very essence is written about how to be spiritually whole. It is not a medical textbook on physical ailments and healing, nor is its focus an emphasis on Christ's ability to physically heal. There is a spiritual element to each account, whether a real life example or a parable. Thanks Bernard, for your always thoughtful posts. Also, this one: We have no idea how many are excluded - and I don't think it is helpful to speculate. I understand that some Christians are exclusivists, but I am not one of them. That is another difference within the community. As with the woman with the issue of blood we discussed several weeks ago in Gospel Doctrine class, "our faith makes us whole." Christ declared the woman was whole by virtue of her faith. The same word is translated "complete" in other contexts. It is clear from the context she had not been baptized and yet she was still whole and complete on the spot based on her faith. What you are describing is universalism based on onlyism. Everyone has the opportunity to be included in God's Kingdom (at some level), but only through the acceptance of a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint ordinance in this world or the next. I feel I am getting perilously close to debating and that is never my intent. I understand however, that within the context of my questions I have made claims and it is fair for the folks here to challenge them. That wasn't my purpose or intent, but I understand. These two posts I thought answered his questions. To say they include answers to none of the points you mentioned is a stretch. The entire last paragraph is about Philippians and the woman. I explained my understanding of the scriptures he used. I don't need others. We were already discussing particular passages. My interpretation is my understanding of the Philippians passage and the passage of the woman with the issue of blood. I explained that. Also I explained my overall interpretation of scripture when I clearly said "My basis for that is my belief that the scripture, at its very essence is written about how to be spiritually whole. It is not a medical textbook on physical ailments and healing, nor is its focus an emphasis on Christ's ability to physically heal. There is a spiritual element to each account, whether a real life example or a parable." You may not be satisfied with my perspective but to say I said "nothing" is a bit extreme, is it not? Bernard interpreted Philippians in an exclusivist manner; I told him that is not what I believe. Exclusivism is one school of interpretation about eternal destiny. I am an inclusivist, another school of thinking about such passages. I don't think it means billions are not going to heaven, will be saved, are lost, or whatever language you want to use. I also indicated my purpose was not be judgmental or confrontational. Perhaps that is the negative of my purpose, what it wasn't, more than what it was, but it still isn't "nothing." I clearly said by using the Gospel Doctrine example that my purpose was to state "My sincerely held belief" no more, no less, just like the teacher does. I had no other purpose but to state my beliefs as all of you do in virtually every post. If that isn't satisfactory, then you are attributing to me more nefarious motives than I intend. Which is why I also said that I didn't mean to be judgmental or confrontational. I sometimes feel like you guys' "identified patient" in a family systems perspective. I am the bad child. The naughty one who disturbs the whole family dynamic. I think I have been given the mantle of the troublemaker. To some degree I can understand that. But, I also just want to say I am dealing with a ton of stress with this whole episode in my life right now. I don't think you are inherently a mean person (well sometimes I do), but I do just want to ask you to please understand the tension and stress I am experiencing because of my walk into the world of the Latter-day Saints. I feel some of you, you especially just want to pile on, I guess in hopes of breaking me so I will go away. Another person on this forum describes it all as a "hobby." Well, it isn't a hobby for me. It is extremely serious. I spend hours in prayer, reflection, and "pondering" everything you all write, everything I read, and trying to figure out how to be pro-LDS. I spend a total of no time on Youtube, flattering myself with my apologetic skills. You clearly would prefer it if I was just some goofy anti-Mormon kook. You would love and salivate over that. I don't fit your paradigm just like I don't fit any paradigm that the Church has about non-member non-investigators desiring to fellowship, worship and participate without joining. That isn't my fault. I believe we add more to our ward than we take from it. I think I am less than on this forum and am not thought of as adding to. I am sorry for that. I just don't know how to fix it. I don't argue or challenge. I just point out what I think and believe. You all are allowed to do that all the time. As I have said before, it is all very discouraging. Besides my wife, my only life's passion is to understand things. Once again, I will apologize I didn't reply better, clearer, or more to your expectations. It wasn't out of fear or bad motives. I am really really trying to figure out something pretty important here. I would value your help. . . and your trust. Quote Edited January 23, 2019 by Navidad 1
Navidad Posted January 23, 2019 Posted January 23, 2019 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: Very sorry, will not reply further. No, please reply. I just don't understand your delight in mocking me. I am different,well guess what? So are you. But you are different from the inside. I am different from the outside. In the LDS way of looking at things, that is a huge difference.
mfbukowski Posted January 23, 2019 Posted January 23, 2019 18 minutes ago, Navidad said: No, please reply. I just don't understand your delight in mocking me. I am different,well guess what? So are you. But you are different from the inside. I am different from the outside. In the LDS way of looking at things, that is a huge difference. I have never wanted to "mock" you, just understand you. I don't seem to be able to do that, we think VERY differently. I do not understand what you mean by inside outside etc. I do not comprehend your words unfortunately I am not a cruel person. I wish you well. 1
Recommended Posts