Let’s talk about sin of judging others

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Just to clarify, you quoted the passage about the "whore." In LDS interpretation, who is the whore? Does it refer to a specific person or group or is it purely metaphorical? Thanks.

Some members have believed that it's one group (in earlier decades people sometimes thought it was the Catholic church, for example) but the official position is that it's different groups (and is also a bit metaphorical).  Here is an excellent article published in the church's magazine, the Ensign, that talks about it.  It was written by Stephen Robinson.

Warring against the Saints of God

[alter idem]

23 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Well, my  understanding on that is that is because they recognize an LDS baptism as non-Trinitarian - hence invalid. 

Yes, that's right.  They don't recognize our baptisms as valid, and I accept their reasoning for this.  So, this begs the question....If you can understand and agree with their reasoning, why can you not also understand the CofJCofLDS not accepting your baptism, when it is 'invalid' by our reasoning?

This seems pretty simple to me, but maybe I'm missing something.

[alter idem]

15 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Just to clarify, you quoted the passage about the "whore." In LDS interpretation, who is the whore? Does it refer to a specific person or group or is it purely metaphorical? Thanks.

It refers to the "church of the Devil'  It's not an actual church or group, but refers to those who fight against the 'church of the Lamb of God'--those who follow Christ.

Here's an explanation as the 'Great and Abominable church is also called 'the whore' in places;

https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Great_and_Abominable_Church

[Navidad]

52 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Some members have believed that it's one group (in earlier decades people sometimes thought it was the Catholic church, for example) but the official position is that it's different groups (and is also a bit metaphorical).  Here is an excellent article published in the church's magazine, the Ensign, that talks about it.  It was written by Stephen Robinson.

Warring against the Saints of God

Thanks. I will read it. I love Robinson's works. It is a real shame we lost him last year. He made things so understandable. 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Some members have believed that it's one group (in earlier decades people sometimes thought it was the Catholic church, for example) but the official position is that it's different groups (and is also a bit metaphorical).  Here is an excellent article published in the church's magazine, the Ensign, that talks about it.  It was written by Stephen Robinson.

Warring against the Saints of God

Ok. I just read the article. As usual, his work is wonderful. What struck me most was the following paragraph "In either the apocalyptic sense or the historical sense, individual orientation to the Church of the Lamb or to the great and abominable church is not by membership but by loyalty. Just as there are Latter-day Saints who belong to the great and abominable church because of their loyalty to Satan and his life-style, so there are members of other churches who belong to the Lamb because of their loyalty to him and his life-style. Membership is based more on who has your heart than on who has your records.

I have never heard something like this statement from the mouth or pen of a Saint. Is his interpretation as expressed in the above quote widely accepted among Saints? Is the average Saint in the pew aware of his conclusion that "membership is based more on who has your heart than on who has your records? All I have heard or read is about the Church ......the Church this .......the Church that....It seems almost idolatrous. Robinson strips away this "I belong to the right one . . . the true and living one and you don't"" ideology. I can't tell you how many times in the ward over the last year I have heard a member say "I am so grateful to belong to the Church inspired by God and not the one made by men or the devil." Of course that seems to come from another quote altogether. Anyway, is Robinson's interpretation one that is accepted by the Church as a whole or by the brethren? His interpretation takes the Church out of it and makes it an individual thing. That is all new to me. 
 

Edited March 29, 2019 by Navidad

[USU78]

Here's a recent RC response to a fundamentalist protestant antiPapist tract:  https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-whore-of-babylon

This one goes all historical and political.  The Whore in both John's Revelation and Nephi's writings is, as mentioned, the owner of one's allegiance and heart.  Both, I'm convinced, hearken back to Isaiah and the Drunkards of Ephraim, whose allegiance and hearts are surely oriented away from YHWH:  https://biblehub.com/isaiah/28-1.htm

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, alter idem said:

Yes, that's right.  They don't recognize our baptisms as valid, and I accept their reasoning for this.  So, this begs the question....If you can understand and agree with their reasoning, why can you not also understand the CofJCofLDS not accepting your baptism, when it is 'invalid' by our reasoning?

This seems pretty simple to me, but maybe I'm missing something.

Of course you are right, if I accepted their point of view. You said, "if I can understand and agree with their reasoning." Well, I need to say, I understand their reasoning, in other words I am aware of the reason they put forward to deny the baptism of the Saints. However, I do not agree with it. That is a huge difference. By the same token, I understand why the LDS Church does not accept my baptism in the same way I understand the Catholic Church's point of view. I don't agree with the reasoning of the LDS either. It all comes down to authority. That is a subject I want to reflect on in another post. I get too long-winded too often. We had a group of 12-15 Saints on our back patio last week who were visiting the colonies to learn about their ancestors. They almost always are directed to our home for me to tell them stories about their ancestors, the early pioneers. I often then accompany them up to the mountain colonies to help show them around. My wife says I tell too many stories. I assure her they keep asking me questions!  I am afraid my wife is more often correct!

[Navidad]

UH OH! I am stuck on 666 posts! The mark of the beast! Where is the moderator? Who will get me off of 666? No, I'm a Mennonite - I can't have a tattoo! Help somebody! 😲

Edited March 29, 2019 by Navidad

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Ok. I just read the article. As usual, his work is wonderful. What struck me most was the following paragraph "In either the apocalyptic sense or the historical sense, individual orientation to the Church of the Lamb or to the great and abominable church is not by membership but by loyalty. Just as there are Latter-day Saints who belong to the great and abominable church because of their loyalty to Satan and his life-style, so there are members of other churches who belong to the Lamb because of their loyalty to him and his life-style. Membership is based more on who has your heart than on who has your records.

I have never heard something like this statement from the mouth or pen of a Saint. Is his interpretation as expressed in the above quote widely accepted among Saints? Is the average Saint in the pew aware of his conclusion that "membership is based more on who has your heart than on who has your records? All I have heard or read is about the Church ......the Church this .......the Church that....It seems almost idolatrous. Robinson strips away this "I belong to the right one . . . the true and living one and you don't"" ideology. I can't tell you how many times in the ward over the last year I have heard a member say "I am so grateful to belong to the Church inspired by God and not the one made by men or the devil." Of course that seems to come from another quote altogether. Anyway, is Robinson's interpretation one that is accepted by the Church as a whole or by the brethren? His interpretation takes the Church out of it and makes it an individual thing. That is all new to me. 
 

That’s probably my favorite part of the entire article. 

I’ve always believed it and never met a member who disagreed. The teaching of the church has always been that membership on its own (just like baptism, taking sacrament, or going to the temple) means nothing. 

Being a member doesn’t guarantee salvation and not being a member doesn’t mean someone is damned. 

Members who did not keep their covenant with Christ will not inherit the Celestial kingdom and nonmembers who were sincere followers of Christ but were kept from the true gospel through no fault of their own will get the chance to accept it after death. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Well, my  understanding on that is that is because they recognize an LDS baptism as non-Trinitarian - hence invalid. 

So because we have different doctrine, they don't accept our Christian baptism as authorized.  And we don't accept their Christian baptism as authorized because they have different doctrine including a different belief in Priesthood authority.

What is the difference?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Of course you are right, if I accepted their point of view. You said, "if I can understand and agree with their reasoning." Well, I need to say, I understand their reasoning, in other words I am aware of the reason they put forward to deny the baptism of the Saints. However, I do not agree with it. That is a huge difference. By the same token, I understand why the LDS Church does not accept my baptism in the same way I understand the Catholic Church's point of view. I don't agree with the reasoning of the LDS either. It all comes down to authority. That is a subject I want to reflect on in another post.

But you were just saying we were the only church to do this kind of stuff?  I am not understanding the difference.  They accept your baptism because it is a Catholic baptism (adheres to their doctrines) no matter who does it.  They don't accept ours because it is not.

Quote

I don't know of any other Christian groups, other than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who believe they are the "True church on earth" to the exclusion of all others, the custodians of the keys to God's grace and those who have exclusive access to the fullness of that grace that leads to a fulness of happiness." We have had this debate and certainly there are those on this forum who disagree with me. Some state that is what Catholics believe. That is not my experience or understanding of their doctrine. They accept my baptism for membership and don't doubt my salvation and eternal life, even in the absence of Catholic baptism and confirmation.  I know of no other group that says only their baptism starts the salvation/exaltation process ....

 

Edited March 30, 2019 by Calm

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

So because we have different doctrine, they don't accept our Christian baptism as authorized.  And we don't accept their Christian baptism as authorized because they have different doctrine including a different belief in Priesthood authority.

What is the difference?

There is no difference. Both are wrong.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

There is no difference. Both are wrong.

So there being no difference, does this mean you've modified your claim that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only one that claims custodian to the keys to God's Grace?

Quote

FOUR MARKS OF THE TRUE CHURCH

If we wish to locate the Church founded by Jesus, we need to locate the one that has the four chief marks or qualities of his Church. The Church we seek must be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic...

Jesus established only one Church, not a collection of differing churches (Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, and so on). The Bible says the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23–32). Jesus can have but one spouse, and his spouse is the Catholic Church...

But the Church itself is holy because it is the source of holiness and is the guardian of the special means of grace Jesus established, the sacraments (cf. Eph. 5:26)...

All the alternatives to Catholicism are showing themselves to be inadequate: the worn-out secularism that is everywhere around us and that no one any longer finds satisfying, the odd cults and movements that offer temporary community but no permanent home, even the other, incomplete brands of Christianity. As our tired world becomes ever more desperate, people are turning to the one alternative they never really had considered: the Catholic Church. They are coming upon truth in the last place they expected to find it...

Over the last few decades many Catholics have left the Church, many dropping out of religion entirely, many joining other churches. But the traffic has not been in only one direction.

The traffic toward Rome has increased rapidly. Today we are seeing more than a hundred and fifty thousand converts enter the Catholic Church each year in the United States, and in some other places, like the continent of Africa, there are more than a million converts to the Catholic faith each year. People of no religion, lapsed or inactive Catholics, and members of other Christian churches are “coming home to Rome.”

They are attracted to the Church for a variety of reasons, but the chief reason they convert is the chief reason you should be Catholic: The solid truth of the Catholic faith.

Our separated brethren hold much Christian truth, but not all of it. We might compare their religion to a stained glass window in which some of the original panes were lost and have been replaced by opaque glass: Something that was present at the beginning is now gone, and something that does not fit has been inserted to fill up the empty space. The unity of the original window has been marred.

When, centuries ago, they split away from the Catholic Church, the theological ancestors of these Christians eliminated some authentic beliefs and added new ones of their own making. The forms of Christianity they established are really incomplete Christianity.

Only the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus, and only it has been able to preserve all Christian truth without any error—and great numbers of people are coming to see this.

https://www.catholic.com/tract/pillar-of-fire-pillar-of-truth

Edited March 30, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

171. What is the meaning of the affirmation “Outside the Church there is no salvation”?

846-848

This means that all salvation comes from Christ, the Head, through the Church which is his body. Hence they cannot be saved who, knowing the Church as founded by Christ and necessary for salvation, would refuse to enter her or remain in her. At the same time, thanks to Christ and to his Church, those who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ and his Church but sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, try to do his will as it is known through the dictates of conscience can attain eternal salvation.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

PS: not trying to prove anything here, just trying to get better insight into your opinion.  Part of my problem is I don't see us (Saints) as unique in this , while you apparently do (did?).  I am trying to find out if this is because the ideas I believe we share with the Catholic and possibly other faiths, that the True Church founded by Christ is necessary for salvation are not seen as shared with each other by you or if you perhaps hadn't seen that type of focus from Catholics generally, while such a focus is usually quite obvious among Saints imo.

Edited March 30, 2019 by Calm

[Yirgacheffe]

On 3/25/2019 at 8:51 AM, Doctrine 612 said:

judging someone .... that is drinking beer is righteous one

Why?

[Doctrine 612]

20 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

Why?

Why is judging someone for drinking beer a righteous judgement?

Since beer is against the word of wisdom and has led many people down the wrong road.

the act of judging them is only righteous if you are going to help them.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Doctrine 612 said:

Why is judging someone for drinking beer a righteous judgement?

Since beer is against the word of wisdom and has led many people down the wrong road.

the act of judging them is only righteous if you are going to help them.

Do you believe that applies to everyone or just church members (who have covenanted to abide by WoW unlike nonmembers)?

Edited March 31, 2019 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, Doctrine 612 said:

Why is judging someone for drinking beer a righteous judgement?

Since beer is against the word of wisdom and has led many people down the wrong road.

the act of judging them is only righteous if you are going to help them.

Hm.  I’ve never tasted beer.  But I have never been bothered by people who do.  I admit if my yw president ordered beer for lunch I’d be critical. 

[Navidad]

On 3/29/2019 at 9:51 PM, Calm said:

So there being no difference, does this mean you've modified your claim that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only one that claims custodian to the keys to God's Grace?

https://www.catholic.com/tract/pillar-of-fire-pillar-of-truth

Calm: I am sorry. I missed your posts. I have been replying to a lot lately. No, I haven't changed my mind. The Catholic Church accepts the baptisms of a whole page full of different Protestant and Orthodox denominations. The baptism of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is one that they don't accept for trinitarian reasons. That doesn't make them exclusivists. I have had many conversations about this with our local priest. He actually bemoans the fact that the Catholic Church isn't as exclusivist as it used to be. It had its Vatican II moment. He is ambivalent but realistic about the changes. Is there a Vatican II moment ahead for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 10 years from now, 50 years, 100 years from now? I have no idea. 

The website you quoted from is from an apologetic website who purpose is to "explain and defend" the Catholic Church. I really don't think from the looks of it, it is an official Catholic site, but I really don't know. Bottom line I still don't know of any other Christian group that denies the efficacy of all other Christian ordinances to the exclusion of its own, especially as related to eternal life. I may be wrong!

[Navidad]

On 3/29/2019 at 10:09 PM, Calm said:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

PS: not trying to prove anything here, just trying to get better insight into your opinion.  Part of my problem is I don't see us (Saints) as unique in this , while you apparently do (did?).  I am trying to find out if this is because the ideas I believe we share with the Catholic and possibly other faiths, that the True Church founded by Christ is necessary for salvation are not seen as shared with each other by you or if you perhaps hadn't seen that type of focus from Catholics generally, while such a focus is usually quite obvious among Saints imo.

I am not sure how to answer this. Again I don't see the commonality between what the Catholic Church and the LDS Church teaches. And again, I may be wrong. I always must say that! My understanding of LDS doctrine is that no one can receive eternal life (existence for all eternity in the presence of Christ and the Father) without experiencing or accepting LDS ordinances in either this life or the next. Is that wrong? Isn't that the whole purpose of the temple baptisms for the dead, to offer those in the spirit world the opportunity to accept the LDS baptisms done on their behalf? I know of no other group, denomination, church, sect (I don't want to offend by the specific word) that teaches that. I don't believe Catholicism teaches that a person has to accept Catholic baptism or other rites in this life or the next to experience eternal life in heaven. Theirs is a teaching that because of the atonement all can, via a hunger and thirst after righteousness achieve eternal life.

I admit confusion because sometimes I think I hear Saints allowing leeway for the fact that God can bring anyone He wants into his kingdom to live with Him forever; LDS or not. Then I hear two talks on temple work, like I did last week and it is pretty clear that everyone who seeks to live in the celestial kingdom will have to avail themselves of their proxy ordinances. So yes, I do get a bit confused at times. Sometimes, depending on who I am talking to, I hear a mixed message. One more time, I may be wrong!

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am not sure how to answer this. Again I don't see the commonality between what the Catholic Church and the LDS Church teaches. And again, I may be wrong. I always must say that! My understanding of LDS doctrine is that no one can receive eternal life (existence for all eternity in the presence of Christ and the Father) without experiencing or accepting LDS ordinances in either this life or the next. Is that wrong? Isn't that the whole purpose of the temple baptisms for the dead, to offer those in the spirit world the opportunity to accept the LDS baptisms done on their behalf? I know of no other group, denomination, church, sect (I don't want to offend by the specific word) that teaches that. I don't believe Catholicism teaches that a person has to accept Catholic baptism or other rites in this life or the next to experience eternal life in heaven. Theirs is a teaching that because of the atonement all can, via a hunger and thirst after righteousness achieve eternal life.

I admit confusion because sometimes I think I hear Saints allowing leeway for the fact that God can bring anyone He wants into his kingdom to live with Him forever; LDS or not. Then I hear two talks on temple work, like I did last week and it is pretty clear that everyone who seeks to live in the celestial kingdom will have to avail themselves of their proxy ordinances. So yes, I do get a bit confused at times. Sometimes, depending on who I am talking to, I hear a mixed message. One more time, I may be wrong!

I appreciate you taking the time to explain.

For me if the belief is salvation can only come through the Church (Catholic or otherwise), I don't see much difference on a fundamental level, especially when in the one case, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' believed revealed instructions from God is to provide the ordinances for every last person who has ever lived on earth when dead so all with no exceptions have the same opportunity to accept or reject those ordinances no matter what they did in mortality (if there are any restrictions based on choices in mortality, that is up to God, not something we ever keep track of; even those who were excommunicated often have blessing restored at the request of the family).  The only ones we don't baptize are those we know died before 8 as it has been revealed they don't need baptism, not being accountable (I admit to me this is a confusing doctrine that logically contradicts other doctrine, imo, as in the end I believe the proxy work ordinances are such that all God's children no matter when or where they were born, lived, and died will be given the chance of the accountable, fully informed choice of choosing to be one with the Lord and thus those who did not have the chance to exercise accountability in this life will be able to in the next prejudgment time).  I expect God will need to explain to me why this is done.  I currently speculate it is done to help us understand how accountability and agency interacts with the atonement.

Quote

 I think I hear Saints allowing leeway for the fact that God can bring anyone He wants into his kingdom to live with Him forever; LDS or not. Then I hear two talks on temple work, like I did last week and it is pretty clear that everyone who seeks to live in the celestial kingdom will have to avail themselves of their proxy ordinances

We don't see this as contradictory since ordinances will be provided for everyone, Saints in mortality or not, so God  reaches out to all knowing all will be provided what they need in terms of mortal ordinances because he has commanded such.  Just as all who are born have been provided the necessary part of eternal progression that the body is, just as we believe all who were ever born will have to chance to hear the preaching of the gospel in this world or the next, so will ordinances in the end be a guaranteed part of everyone's life ...though it will take some time and effort to get there.  Anyone who wants to seeks to live in the Celestial Kingdom will have to avail themselves of the gift of their physical body (perfected thankfully), will have to avail themselves of the chance to be taught the Gospel and they will need to accept it fully.

Edited March 31, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

Navidad, doing a new post rather than editing in case you already read it.

Do you see it as unfair or somehow wrong for us to believe that all must have received in some fashion an understanding of the Gospel (how Christ teaches it, imo, not just the partial understanding we currently have) and accept it fully in order to live with God in the Celestial Kingdom?  Not even endowed Saints are done with the learning process at death according to our teachings.  What happens in the next life is a required step for all in some fashion, just as mortality is a step that can't be skipped.

Or does it make sense to you that everyone must know the Gospel and accept or reject it through accepting or rejecting God's Atonement before living with God?

Edited March 31, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

I like the analogy that all climb their own ladder to God at their own pace.  The ladders are different, but the rungs themselves are all the same.  Each ladder has all the necessary rungs to get people up to heaven, they just aren't in the same order.  The order of the rungs are dependent on the environment (time, place, culture, level of exposure to the gospel) someone is born into, lives in as well as choices they make in their lifetimes (premortal, mortal, postmortal) that provide them with necessary experiences sooner rather than later or later rather than sooner.  We have been climbing the ladder since way before we were born and some rungs may have to have been placed early on, some midway (birth, death), some towards the end, but it may be possible that some could be anywhere (thinking these might be accepting those rungs that cause us to be changed in our hearts to accept godly attributes such as charity or faith).

Or maybe it is more like scaling a mountain and using both already set pitons (birth, death) and choosing others from the bag God gave us when we set out.  We can only get to the top by using all that were given us, but God doesn't insist on when we use them, though some types might be better fits at times so there is less struggling in getting it set in the rock, but even there we are not all climbing the same face of the mountain so when that time comes that one kind of piton wouldbe better than another will vary,

Edited March 31, 2019 by Calm