“Is a Christian a Christian;” instead of “Is a Mormon a Christian?”

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

1. “Orthodox Christian views of God are pagan rather than Christian” (Mormon Doctrine of Deity, B. H. Roberts [General Authority], 116).
2. I was answered that I must join none of them (Christian churches), for they were all wrong . . . their creeds were an abomination in [God’s] sight; that those professors were all corrupt” (Joseph Smith—History1:19).
3. “The Roman Catholic, Greek, and Protestant church, is the great corrupt, ecclesiastical power, represented by great Babylon” (Orson Pratt, Writings of an Apostle, Orson Pratt, n. 6, 84).
4. [Under the heading, “Church of the Devil,” Apostle Bruce R. McConkie lists:] “The Roman Catholic Church specifically—singled out, set apart, described, and designated as being ‘most abominable above all other churches’ (I Ne. 13:5)” (Mormon Doctrine, 1958, 129).
5. “Believers in the doctrines of modern Christendom will reap damnation to their souls (Morm. 8; Moro. 8)” (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, Bruce R. McConkie, 177).

Number 1 is the only quote that is kind of relevant, but still isn't all that relevant.  

BH Roberts isn't calling orthodox Christians pagan, he is only referring to their doctrine (which I'm guessing he means the doctrine of the Trinity).  Number 2 does not say anything about the members of those Christian churches, and numbers 3-5 are actively taught against in the church (McConkie even got reprimanded for trying to pass them off as official church doctrine when they weren't, which I'm guessing you are aware of since you've been a member for so long).

[Calm]

Quote

1. ...B. H. Roberts [died 1933]...
2. ...
3. ...Orson Pratt, [died 1881]...
4. ...Bruce R. McConkie ... 1958...
5. ...1966, Bruce R. McConkie...

And if they rise from their graves and continue to repeat those views, I might be taken back enough not to say anything, but my mind would still be going " you have got to be kidding me!".

I don't know if it was in that post or another one, but I believe I acknowledged that comments in the past from leaders had been harsh.  That the most recent of your quotes was written in 1966 (and McConkie was told to lose the Roman Catholic Church of the Devil comment by those with more authority) only demonstrates we don't hear this from the pulpit anymore.  Which of those comments besides the History of JS is used in manuals, magazines, or cited in conference talks?  Mormon Doctrine isn't even published any more by Deseretbook and I am guessing that wasn't a decision based on how it sold.

Even the original site's insert of "(Christian churches)" in the History of JS (the only comment still being taught) is not a repudiation of those churches as Christian.  I am not claiming we don't teach they have false doctrine and in some very, very important areas (such as the nature of God), I am saying we don't make such that Christians are not really Christian these days and haven't for as long as I have been aware of the conversations from the pulpit or in official publications that other Christians are not actually Christian.

Unfortunately there are a few members who do, but I have never encountered any at church or otherwise face to face....only online.

Edited April 19, 2019 by Calm

[Teancum]

On 4/15/2019 at 5:20 PM, The Nehor said:

Praising the CEO of a fast food company and endorsing its products is inappropriate in Elder’s Quorum. Then again in my Sunday School class I teach I had to cut off a discussion about how Pelosi was a Gadianton and how Trump was the anti-Christ. Why do people seem to take some perverse glee at dragging politics into our church meetings? Why are those who are most eager to do so also hopelessly ignorant about it in the first place?

HEY!  We have a little bit of common ground here!

[Calm]

Btw Teancum, when you cut and paste from others' work, it is common courtesy as well as board rules to give them credit for it.

[Teancum]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

And if they rise from their graves and continue to repeat those views, I might be taken back enough not to say anything, but my mind would still be going " you have got to be kidding me!".

I don't know if it was in that post or another one, but I believe I acknowledged that comments in the past from leaders had been harsh.  That the most recent of your quotes was written in 1966 (and McConkie was told to lose the Roman Catholic Church of the Devil comment by those with more authority) only demonstrates we don't hear this from the pulpit anymore.  Which of those comments besides the History of JS is used in manuals, magazines, or cited in conference talks?  Mormon Doctrine isn't even published any more by Deseretbook and I am guessing that wasn't a decision based on how it sold.

Even your insert of "(Christian churches)" in the History of JS (the only comment still being taught) is not a repudiation of those churches as Christian.  I am not claiming we don't teach they have false doctrine and in some very, very important areas (such as the nature of God), I am saying we don't make claims these days and haven't for as long as I have been aware of the conversations from the pulpit or in official publications that other Christians are not actually Christian.

Unfortunately there are a few members who do, but I have never encountered any at church or otherwise face to face....only online.

Calm I am really in your camp on this one. And certainly the rhetoric about other Christian sects has subsided extensively in the past 25-30 years.  On the other hand I grew up with the quotes I provided, as well as a plethora of others. When serving as a missionary from 1979-1981 I was of the mind, and approached my teaching and quite a few bible bashes I got into, that the LDS Church and it's members were the only Christians, and the rest were apostate wannabe's.

So there is no question that the Church and its leaders were much more harsh about other Christian sects than they are today.  I think they should own that rather than brush it under the rug like so many other things the LDS Church does.

I recall one fine Catholic family we taught and baptized.  AS the father of this family read the Book of Mormon he concluded himself that The Great and Abominable Church was the Catholic Church. We did not taint him with that idea. He concluded it himself from his own studies of the Book of Mormon. 

Edited April 19, 2019 by Teancum

[Teancum]

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Number 1 is the only quote that is kind of relevant, but still isn't all that relevant.  

BH Roberts isn't calling orthodox Christians pagan, he is only referring to their doctrine (which I'm guessing he means the doctrine of the Trinity).  Number 2 does not say anything about the members of those Christian churches, and numbers 3-5 are actively taught against in the church (McConkie even got reprimanded for trying to pass them off as official church doctrine when they weren't, which I'm guessing you are aware of since you've been a member for so long).

Well alli can say is that in my almost 60 years at least 35 of it the Church was nowhere near as ecumenical as it is today.  But as I said to Calm, the LDS Church loves to sweep these things under the rug and dissemble about them, sort of like what you just did.

[Teancum]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Btw Teancum, when you cut and paste from others' work, it is common courtesy as well as board rules to give them credit for it.

Sorry, Can you clarify what you are looking for?

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I would refer you to the article on Salvation on LDS.org .......   https://www.lds.org/topics/salvation?lang=eng       It refers to six disparate uses of the word salvation in LDS terminology.  This is very confusing for the non-LDS Christian. It makes discussion without operational definitions of terms almost impossible. I am sure the three scriptures you mention are "sufficiently clear" for your understanding as a longtime member of the Church. They certainly aren't clear to someone like me. Especially 2 Nephi 31:21. Talk about a clear statement of the Trinity (as I understand it) in one verse! The whole chapter is based on baptismal regeneration, a completely foreign concept to me. Just as my peculiarly Mennonite beliefs are "sufficiently clear" to me, they aren't to the majority of the rest of Christianity. I found the Salvation article very helpful and very confusing at the same time. It taught me that I cannot have a cogent discussion with a Saint about Salvation until we clarify what it is we are each individually talking about. 

Sorry this didn’t help.

I’ve had many cogent conversations over the years. It does help to agree on terms. 

[Navidad]

8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Sorry this didn’t help.

I’ve had many cogent conversations over the years. It does help to agree on terms. 

Sorry, I don't think I said that right. I wasn't referring to our conversation at all. I was speaking generically. I apologize because I think I left you under the wrong impression that I was referring to our discussion. Sorry.

[Joshua Valentine]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

And if they rise from their graves and continue to repeat those views, I might be taken back enough not to say anything, but my mind would still be going " you have got to be kidding me!".

I don't know if it was in that post or another one, but I believe I acknowledged that comments in the past from leaders had been harsh.  That the most recent of your quotes was written in 1966 (and McConkie was told to lose the Roman Catholic Church of the Devil comment by those with more authority) only demonstrates we don't hear this from the pulpit anymore.  Which of those comments besides the History of JS is used in manuals, magazines, or cited in conference talks?  Mormon Doctrine isn't even published any more by Deseretbook and I am guessing that wasn't a decision based on how it sold.

Even the original site's insert of "(Christian churches)" in the History of JS (the only comment still being taught) is not a repudiation of those churches as Christian.  I am not claiming we don't teach they have false doctrine and in some very, very important areas (such as the nature of God), I am saying we don't make such that Christians are not really Christian these days and haven't for as long as I have been aware of the conversations from the pulpit or in official publications that other Christians are not actually Christian.

Unfortunately there are a few members who do, but I have never encountered any at church or otherwise face to face....only online.

 

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Calm I am really in your camp on this one. And certainly the rhetoric about other Christian sects has subsided extensively in the past 25-30 years.  On the other hand I grew up with the quotes I provided, as well as a plethora of others. When serving as a missionary from 1979-1981 I was of the mind, and approached my teaching and quite a few bible bashes I got into, that the LDS Church and it's members were the only Christians, and the rest were apostate wannabe's.

So there is no question that the Church and its leaders were much more harsh about other Christian sects than they are today.  I think they should own that rather than brush it under the rug like so many other things the LDS Church does.

I recall one fine Catholic family we taught and baptized.  AS the father of this family read the Book of Mormon he concluded himself that The Great and Abominable Church was the Catholic Church. We did not taint him with that idea. He concluded it himself from his own studies of the Book of Mormon. 

Please give me resources on this topic, because I am unaware of an actual statement of correction on these teachings/books.

Simply not teaching these same things so harshly does not mean much. Simply stopping sale of the book does not mean much. (Literally an argument from silence? And silence says nothing).

And there were plenty of current members and leaders alive in 1966; they were raised with these teachings and beliefs. So I think this behooves current leadership to explicitly say something to the effect that those teachings do not represent the LDS Church, were prejudices of their day (à la priesthood ban and Brigham Young), and even ¨wrong¨.

No longer teaching it doesn´t mean they think it was not correct. The principle of continuing revelation underscores this point! So no longer teaching it can not effectively be used to show that it does not represent officially the LDS Church doctrine at all - the principle of continuing revelation also supports this conclusion. Official correction is the only things that corrects official statements. It seems only by ¨owning¨ it - by declaring it error and correcting it, perhaps even apologizing for it - can the LDS Church own a conclusion that these teachings do not represent their Church.
 

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

Sorry, I don't think I said that right. I wasn't referring to our conversation at all. I was speaking generically. I apologize because I think I left you under the wrong impression that I was referring to our discussion. Sorry.

No worries. I don't quite get your confusion, though. It's a frequent discussion in LDS circles and is crystal clear to me. Perhaps its the same kind of confusion I feel when I hear Catholics describing the cult of Mary and the Saints, the Trinitarians explaining three in one, Evangelicals downplaying works, and the Calvinists trying to describe just about anything. 

Edited April 20, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Joshua Valentine said:

 

Please give me resources on this topic, because I am unaware of an actual statement of correction on these teachings/books.

Simply not teaching these same things so harshly does not mean much. Simply stopping sale of the book does not mean much. (Literally an argument from silence? And silence says nothing).

And there were plenty of current members and leaders alive in 1966; they were raised with these teachings and beliefs. So I think this behooves current leadership to explicitly say something to the effect that those teachings do not represent the LDS Church, were prejudices of their day (à la priesthood ban and Brigham Young), and even ¨wrong¨.

No longer teaching it doesn´t mean they think it was not correct. The principle of continuing revelation underscores this point! So no longer teaching it can not effectively be used to show that it does not represent officially the LDS Church doctrine at all - the principle of continuing revelation also supports this conclusion. Official correction is the only things that corrects official statements. It seems only by ¨owning¨ it - by declaring it error and correcting it, perhaps even apologizing for it - can the LDS Church own a conclusion that these teachings do not represent their Church.
 

I don't know if that could or would ever happen, but it would be a great starting point for healing. Ever since coming on this forum in August 1917 I have thought that the negative statements about non-LDS Christians by Saints (even going back to Pratt) are not truly appreciated as an important catalyst in the tension between the groups from the 1800's going up through the 1960's. Whether found in books about the apostasy (Talmage, for example) or in other pronouncements about non-LDS Christians, they have been very harmful.

I have thought that the equivalent would be me denying that the anti-Mormon comics,  cartoons, dime store novels, broad cult generalizations, gross misrepresentation of LDS beliefs all found in the writings of some angry and arrogant non-LDS Christians of the same era (and continuing today) have no impact at all on the Saint's attitudes toward non-LDS Christians. Of course they do. Just as Saints tend not to discriminate between the non-LDS Christians (Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and mainstream), neither is there a methodology for non-LDS Christians to discriminate in the attitudes of many modern day Mormons from whatever they read by this or that apostle or leader on line from 100-150 years ago. I have never seen an article or a book written by a well-known Saint on "Why I believe non-LDS Christians are Christians." There are also precious few books and articles by non-LDS Christians on "Why I believe Latter-day Saints are Christians." The focus is on books by Saints telling why Saints should be considered Christians. Not many Saints would disagree with  that! I am hoping to change this whole mess to the extent that I can. I think the beginning point is to acknowledge how much damage has been done to the Christian community by statements, sermons, teachings, and yes mockings of both sides. "How Wide the Divide" was a start but it didn't go nearly far enough on really sensitive stuff. I know . . . . I am a dreamer. But I can also heat up my Cooler Master Brown Cherry Mechanical Keyboard and make it hum! Ha! Happy Easter to you all. 😄
 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

And there were plenty of current members and leaders alive in 1966; they were raised with these teachings and beliefs. So I think this behooves current leadership to explicitly say something to the effect that those teachings do not represent the LDS Church, were prejudices of their day (à la priesthood ban and Brigham Young), and even ¨wrong¨.

This would mean more to me if you were a member actively engaged in supporting the faith (you claiming to know what older members need).

I feel no need to tell your church, if you have one, how they should be running things.  I just can't get that motivated to convince myself to try and convince you.

Edited April 20, 2019 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

and the Calvinists trying to describe just about anything.

😂

[Navidad]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

No worries. I don't quite get your confusion, though. It's a frequent discussion in LDS circles and is crystal clear to me. Perhaps its the same kind of confusion I feel when I hear Catholics describing the cult of Mary and the Saints, the Trinitarians explaining three in one, Evangelicals downplaying works, and the Calvinists trying to describe just about anything. 

Well, I am not a Calvinist, so at least we don't have that issue! Here is what confuses me - taken directly from the Salvation page on LDS.org. I copy it in its entirety. The original text bolded the headings. I have added some bolding to show why these things might be confusing to a non-LDS Christian who only knows salvation as redemption and nothing else. 

In the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the terms “saved” and “salvation” have various meanings. As used in Romans 10:9–10, the words “saved” and “salvation” signify a covenant relationship with Jesus Christ. Through this covenant relationship, followers of Christ are assured salvation from the eternal consequences of sin if they are obedient. “Salvation” and “saved” are also used in the scriptures in other contexts with several different meanings.

If someone were to ask if another person had been saved, the answer would depend on the sense in which the word is used. The answer might be “Yes” or perhaps it might be “Yes, but with conditions.” The following explanations outline six different meanings of the word salvation.

Salvation from Physical Death. All people eventually die. But through the Atonement and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, all people will be resurrected—saved from physical death. Paul testified, “As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). In this sense, everyone is saved, regardless of choices made during this life. This is a free gift from the Savior to all human beings.

Salvation from Sin. To be cleansed from sin through the Savior’s Atonement, an individual must exercise faith in Jesus Christ, repent, be baptized, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (see Acts 2:37–38). Those who have been baptized and have received the Holy Ghost through the proper priesthood authority have been conditionally saved from sin. In this sense, salvation is conditional, depending on an individual’s continuing in faithfulness, or enduring to the end in keeping the commandments of God (see 2 Peter 2:20–22).

Individuals cannot be saved in their sins; they cannot receive unconditional salvation simply by declaring a belief in Christ with the understanding that they will inevitably commit sins throughout the rest of their lives (see Alma 11:36–37). However, through the grace of God, all can be saved from their sins (see 2 Nephi 25:23; Helaman 5:10–11) as they repent and follow Jesus Christ.

Being Born Again. The principle of spiritual rebirth appears frequently in the scriptures. The New Testament contains Jesus’s teaching that everyone must be “born again” and that those who are not “born of water and of the Spirit … cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). This teaching is affirmed in the Book of Mormon: “All mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, must be born again; yea, born of God, changed from their carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness, being redeemed of God, becoming his sons and daughters; and thus they become new creatures; and unless they do this, they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God” (Mosiah 27:25–26).

This rebirth occurs as individuals are baptized and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. It comes as a result of a willingness “to enter into a covenant with our God to do his will, and to be obedient to his commandments in all things that he shall command us, all the remainder of our days” (Mosiah 5:5). Through this process, their “hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, [they] are born of him” (Mosiah 5:7). All who have truly repented, been baptized, have received the gift of the Holy Ghost, have made the covenant to take upon themselves the name of Jesus Christ, and have felt His influence in their lives, can say that they have been born again. That rebirth can be renewed each Sabbath when they partake of the sacrament.

Salvation from Ignorance. Many people live in a state of darkness, not knowing the light of the restored gospel. They are “only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it” (D&C 123:12). Those who have a knowledge of God the Father, Jesus Christ, the purpose of life, the plan of salvation, and their eternal potential are saved from this condition. They follow the Savior, who declared, “I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life” (John 8:12).

Salvation from the Second Death. The scriptures sometimes speak of salvation from the second death. The second death is the final spiritual death—being cut off from righteousness and denied a place in any kingdom of glory (see Alma 12:32; D&C 88:24). This second death will not come until the Final Judgment, and it will come to only a few (see D&C 76:31–37). Almost every person who has ever lived on the earth is assured salvation from the second death (see D&C 76:40–45).

Eternal Life, or Exaltation. In the scriptures, the words saved and salvation often refer to eternal life, or exaltation (see Abraham 2:11). Eternal life is to know Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and dwell with Them forever—to inherit a place in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom (see John 17:3; D&C 131:1–4; 132:21–24). This exaltation requires that men receive the Melchizedek Priesthood, and that all Church members make and keep sacred covenants in the temple, including the covenant of eternal marriage. If the word salvation is used in this sense, no one is saved in mortality. That glorious gift comes only after the Final Judgment.

The first two paragraphs clearly predict confusion because of "various meanings" and acknowledge that there are differences in "how the word is used." The words are also "used in different contexts" and once again have "different meanings." These differences are not present in non-LDS Christian theology, at least not to such a degree. One might say our view of salvation is much simpler or cleaner. Or a LDS Christian critic could opine it is much easier - too easy in fact! Maybe nothing in that article as I have copied confuses you, but it sures does me and I would guess it confuses most non-LDS Christians who are honest about it. I hope this helps.

[Joshua Valentine]

50 minutes ago, Calm said:

This would me more to me if you were a member actively engaged in supporting the faith (you claiming to know what older members need).

I feel no need to tell your church, if you have one, how they should be running things.  I just can't get that motivated to convince myself to try and convince you.

I never claimed what older members need. So maybe it can still mean something, despite my not being a member?

I said simply stopping teaching something and even teaching something different now is not sufficient to deem previous teachings as no longer authoritative or relevant - especially when those teachings are not centuries apart but have been given to the same individuals.

Given that LDS prophets are given to lead their generations - if two different prophets say two seemingly diametrically opposed things to the same generation without actually admitting that opposition, then: 1) those members may believe that the two teachings are not opposed (so you can believe non-LDS Christians are not really Christians, but still believe that for neighborliness and cooperation you can use a very broad definition to accept them as Christians) and 2) those members may justifiably have issues knowing what to believe. So some explanation is probably called for.

Perhaps it may ¨mean more to (you) if (I) were a member actively engaged in supporting the faith¨, but that is probably a truism and not a reason to discount my points. Whether I am a member or not does not effect whether my points are good ones or not, it only affects your motivation to respond, which is probably what you meant. That´s fair.

However, I do have a vested interest in this topic because:
1) I´m a Christian, whose beliefs are very similar to those of my brothers and sisters scorned by previous LDS leaders.

2) I´m a Christian, who hears LDS Christians making claims about the same God as I believe in, while claiming they are telling the truth straight from the God I believe in.

3) I´m a non-LDS Christian, who hears LDS Christians say that they are Christians ¨like [me]¨ and yet LDS leaders have said such things and LDS doctrine and scripture say similar things to justify those teachings.

4) I´m a non-LDS Christian, who knows that at least some of the converts to the LDS religion are my brothers and sisters who will be exposed to these types of ideas about who I am, who their families and friends are, and who they themselves used to be.

5) Anyone claiming to speak for God, let alone the same God as those of different ¨religions¨, should be taken to task and held to a high standard by members and non-members.*

6) I also have LDS friends who I care about dearly and they are exposed to these teachings, this lack of clarity, and apparent lack of ownership/responsibility.

 

*Is there such a great difference in LDS leaders making claims about my God and my Savior, let alone my identity as a Christian, and what you are accusing me of doing as a non-member critiquing your Church?

Edited April 20, 2019 by Joshua Valentine
attempt to fix italics issue

[Calm]

Not in a good mood tonight, think it best just not to post right now. 

[Tacenda]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not in a good mood tonight, think it best just not to post right now. 

Tonight I went to see the movie "Breakthrough", about the boy that fell through the ice and was pronounced dead later. And then his mother prayed over his dead body and willed God to bring back her son and he did, and it was beyond  a modern miracle.

They are non LDS Christians in this true story and they really struck a chord with me that made me desire that kind of closeness with the Lord and not have a middle man or a prophet. Just a pastor that is there through it all, but doesn't claim any special ability to get revelation for them. Or someone who is in between me and the Lord. Or how for so long, the men have all been in between me and the Lord. And having this mindset tonight is probably why I got into it about the cross on the other thread.

And to top it off, my husband told me something that has me really upset. My husband's family are putting together a huge 90th birthday party for my MIL, on that day in the morning they are all going to do a session at the temple and he and I aren't able to go, we have no recommend as you probably already know, but she found out that we aren't going after her other son mentioned we weren't going to make it.  She then called my husband to ask why we aren't. My husband told a little or big, white lie and said it was because he and I take CBD/THC oil and that is breaking the WoW or something to that affect. I was so upset that he lied, but understand how it would kill her if she knew of our faith struggle. So I'm on edge with this and why we have to go through this and why it's this way with LDS and their non believing famiy members, not you though.

I hope you feel better, and I'm sorry if I in any way contributed to you feeling not in a good mood, with my fighting against the church in my posts the way I do.

Edited April 20, 2019 by Tacenda

[Jean-Luc Picard]

After talking with friends from other fundamentalist/evangelical denominations. They made the point, "when you say the Church, do you mean all Christian churches, or just your church?"

I can tell you when they pray for the Church, they mean Christianity (except liberal churches and the Catholics, because they just read the Bible wrong). But, their idea of church/christianity is fairly inclusive, it includes most evangelical/non-denominational I sects.

When they refer just to their congregation/denomination, they clarify with OUR Church.

I think some of us LDS folks get isolated in our mindsets. We want to be considered Christian by other sects, but we don't think about the Church as all Christians. It is only "THE Church." It is hard for others to accept us, because we don't want to necessarily include them, or BE them.

I hope that made sense. It has taken me months of pondering to begin to grasp what my friends meant.

Edited April 20, 2019 by Jean-Luc Picard

[Joshua Valentine]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Not in a good mood tonight, think it best just not to post right now. 

Calm, you exemplify wisdom for us yet again. We should all take note.

(I know that could be taken easily as cheek, but I mean it sincerely. I´ve always respected your measured and compassionate responses and contribution here, Calm. Especially, if you are in fact the Calmoriah I remember from a few years ago???)

[Calm]

Yes, I am calmoriah, got lazy one night and shortened my name. 

I didn’t take it as cheek, thank you for understanding 

Edited April 20, 2019 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, Navidad said:

The first two paragraphs clearly predict confusion because of "various meanings" and acknowledge that there are differences in "how the word is used." The words are also "used in different contexts" and once again have "different meanings." These differences are not present in non-LDS Christian theology, at least not to such a degree. One might say our view of salvation is much simpler or cleaner. Or a LDS Christian critic could opine it is much easier - too easy in fact! Maybe nothing in that article as I have copied confuses you, but it sures does me and I would guess it confuses most non-LDS Christians who are honest about it. I hope this helps.

Not really. Since you reject the appeal to understand words in context as was explained,, there’s not much more to say.

Having had numerous interactions with non-LDS Christians, I believe there is plenty of confusion to go around. We, usually end up with this very discussion about salvation. Even so, I remain quite confused about what they believe....

Once saved, whatis the plan of salvation, am I always saved, can one fall from grace, what is the role of baptism in salvation, do I have to accept all the Christian Creeds to be saved or just a few select ones, must I believe only the Bible in order to be saved, are only certain types of believers saved, what does resurrection mean, will all mankind be resurrected or just the saved, how will the saved spend eternity, what is Hell, what happens to people who never heard the gospel or the name of Jesus, are there people who are not capable of being saved, does God choose those he will save and damn all the rest, must one pray the sinner’s prayer to be saved, is saying a prayer a work, do I play any part at all in my own salvation, how does one know he is saved, does being saved give me license to sin some more, can I believe I am saved but not really be saved, how do others know I have been saved, etc.?

After a number of good conversations with you, I get the feeling that your frustrations are centered around the simple fact that LDS beliefs are not the same as your beliefs and you wish we would change ours to be more compatible with yours so we can get along better. Is that accurate?

For example, are you willing to consider that there may be varying degrees of reward (one size does not fit all) in the panoply of salvation?

In your view, who is saved, how are they saved, do they have any responsibility for their salvation, and what are they saved from?

Edited April 20, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[sheilauk]

18 hours ago, Tacenda said:

They are non LDS Christians in this true story and they really struck a chord with me that made me desire that kind of closeness with the Lord and not have a middle man or a prophet. Just a pastor that is there through it all, but doesn't claim any special ability to get revelation for them. Or someone who is in between me and the Lord. Or how for so long, the men have all been in between me and the Lord. 

This is where you keep going wrong.   Maybe it's because I'm a convert,  but I'm not aware of any teaching of the COJCOLDS that suggests there is anyone between us as individuals and the Lord and there is certainly no middle man for me.   There are men and women in certain positions who organise the church and provide counsel and who ask me to help the Lords work in some way.   What do you think a pastor does?   How do you think other churches are organised and administered?  In other churches,  I helped in primary and ran a youth club and helped with social events.   My then minister and the church stewards asked me.   The youth club kids wanted to do the church garden.   We had to ask the minister who had to ask his supervisor for permission. Members don't just do things.  There is always a hierarchy and an organisation.  But there is never anyone in the COJCOLDS or in any other church that is between you and the Lord.

[Navidad]

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Not really. Since you reject the appeal to understand words in context as was explained,, there’s not much more to say.

I am not sure what this means. I have no objection and I certainly don’t reject understanding words in context. It is the opposite, I advocate for that.

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Having had numerous interactions with non-LDS Christians, I believe there is plenty of confusion to go around. We, usually end up with this very discussion about salvation. Even so, I remain quite confused about what they believe....

OK. Nothing here to disagree or debate with. I heartily agree there is plenty of confusion to go around. I can understand that you are confused about what "they" believe......because there are as many and more likely more (just based on numbers) differences in beliefs among non-LDS Christians as among LDS Christians. Now you may ask, how do I know who is right? I don't, especially on beliefs, doctrines, and dogmas that have come out of culture, history, and group identity. These beliefs are evident again in both LDS and Non-LDS Christians. I don't worry about who is right. That isn't my thing. God is right and I trust Him completely. My faith is all about a relationship with Him, not an adherence to a complicated set of beliefs where people stress if they feel they are out of or perceived by others as out of the mainstream of the particular belief system, whether found in LDS or non-LDS beliefs. My faith is a trust, not a list of dictates. I have evolved in that, and now at 70 years of age am more content where I am. You have a lot of questions to come, I can only give you my answers. They work for me, but don't for other LDS and non-LDS Christians. A basic understanding of church history allows us to understand that various Christian groups (including the LDS) have added to, taken away from, and modified their own beliefs over time. I will attempt to give you my answers to your questions. They might confuse you because they will certainly be different from those you would get from other non-LDS Christians. My answers will not represent LDS Christian beliefs any more than they will represent those of my Fundamentalist brothers and sisters; neither will they represent those of my mainstream Christian friends' beliefs. I would guess your beliefs don't exactly match all other LDS Christian beliefs, certainly don't match those of all Community of Christ, Bickerton, LeBaron, or other restorationist churches of the early 19th century like the Disciples of Christ. Nor do they probably match the beliefs of all other LDS Christians on this forum! Now to your questions - 

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Once saved, whatis the plan of salvation, am I always saved, can one fall from grace, what is the role of baptism in salvation, do I have to accept all the Christian Creeds to be saved or just a few select ones, must I believe only the Bible in order to be saved, are only certain types of believers saved, what does resurrection mean, will all mankind be resurrected or just the saved, how will the saved spend eternity, what is Hell, what happens to people who never heard the gospel or the name of Jesus, are there people who are not capable of being saved, does God choose those he will save and damn all the rest, must one pray the sinner’s prayer to be saved, is saying a prayer a work, do I play any part at all in my own salvation, how does one know he is saved, does being saved give me license to sin some more, can I believe I am saved but not really be saved, how do others know I have been saved, etc.?

My goodness, so many questions - Being saved is a point in time (aorist) experience. It involves personal repentance (being sorry for and turning away from sin) and acceptance of God's gift of redemption through the suffering, death, and resurrection of His son. That "saves" someone. It may or may not be that which determines eternal destiny. More on that later. Am I always saved? As I have said before, I struggle with this one. I am leaning right now that yes, we can fall from grace. That fall however is neither permanent or determinative. LDS Christians are Arminian in this regard along with many non-LDS Christians. Baptism plays no role in salvation. It is a testimony (acknowledgement) of salvation (repentance, sorrow and turning away) and acceptance of Christ’s suffering, death, and resurrection on our behalf. We are declared righteous and publicly confess this in the act of baptism. You didn’t ask, but authority to perform ordinances is a locally granted privilege. It is administrative authority. I have no authority to baptize in a ward; no LDS priest has authority to perform ordinances except in an LDS setting.

No, you do not have to accept any creeds to be saved. You don’t have to accept any part of any creed to be saved. You need not memorize or recite any creed to demonstrate your faith. I do not and have never recited any creed. The majority of Protestant and Anabaptist Christians agree with me on that. It is a pet peeve of mine to hear LDS Christians go on about the creeds. I know the creeds are important to some, or even to many, but I have never personally preached or ministered in a church that recited a creed. No, you don’t have to believe only the Bible to be saved. Let me say it again, being saved involves repentance and acceptance of the gift of God in Jesus Christ. Nothing else. Everything else in non-essential for salvation. I assume you are asking me if someone can believe in the Bible and the Book of Mormon and be saved. YES! Are only certain types of believers saved? I don’t understand this question, so I hesitate to answer what I don’t understand. You will have to tell me more about this question before I can answer it. Thanks.  

Your next series of questions involve the future and eternity. There is so much unknown in this regard. I will attempt to answer these questions in the context I understand, however I may be totally wrong. Again I have trust in Christ as the basis of my faith – no prescribed set of beliefs about eschatology. So I answer with some hesitancy. I believe in a final day of judgment in which all humans who have ever lived will be judged by Christ. I believe the primary criterion will be faith given the amount and type received by the person. Christ will have the ability to do that which I could never do, look into a person’s heart to understand that person’s faith. Christian or not, all will go through this judgment. I am not an exclusivist. I don’t believe only Christians will be able to demonstrate faith. I believe the more light, the more opportunity for sanctification (as distinct from salvation) the more will be the accountability. I believe heaven is a single tier place with differing rewards. I believe that all who Christ decides should, will dwell with him and the Father forever. They will continue to learn and grow – the process of sanctification will continue for some and will begin for others. No harps, etc. Learning, worshipping, and serving will keep us busy for eternity. Will there be differing sized mansions, etc? Probably, but now you are moving above my pay grade. I really don’t know. Might there be three levels? Sure. I don’t know. I can’t get my head around the concept that folks will be denied the presence of the Father and Son in heaven. I do believe in a literal hell; however it will be much less populated than many think. It will be at the final judgement seat that all these things will be sorted out. I have absolute confidence in the ability of Christ to balance mercy and judgment in every single case.  

You next section gets into a lot of Calvinist/Reformed stuff. I am neither Calvinist or Reformed, so that should answer the questions for you. I do not believe in limited atonement, predestination, etc. Do I believe there are people who cannot be saved? No. But please remember my distinction between salvation and eternal destiny. They are separate and distinct. The former involves the atonement of Christ, the latter involves faith in the light provided. Must one say the sinner’s prayer to be saved? I would suppose one must acknowledge the basic elements contained in what is typically called that, but there is no rote prayer that needs to be said. I have baptized many folks based on their acceptance of the atonement; I don’t remember ever requiring a prescribed prayer. I have always allowed the person to share their own testimony prior to baptism. If it is of any interest, I have always baptized by immersion; assuring the correct mode, however is not of particular importance to me. Saying a prayer is not a work, it is a privilege. It is how I communicate with the Holy Spirit who indwells me. Again it is not a rote process. Yes, you play a part in your own salvation. You must acknowledge, turn away from sin and accept the gift of redemption through Christ. I know of no way that can happen without the individual’s participation. That is why I wouldn’t baptize someone until I was sure they understood what they were doing and what Christ was doing in the process. 

I believe that in this dispensation we (Christians) are the physical and visible representation of God on earth. What the pillar of fire, cloud of smoke, shekinah glory was in the days prior to Ezekiel 12; what Christ was when He was on earth, we are now. We have a responsibility to let our light shine (the light of the indwelling Holy Spirit) and witness to those around us. Are there those who think they are saved, but aren’t? My instincts tell me yes, but I know I am not to be the judge of that. I might get clues after being around a particular person for a while, but it is not my place to judge. I have enough to deal with my own sanctification without worrying about everyone else’s! Being saved gives me license to glorify God, be His physical visible presence on earth. I am not sure why you would ask if it gives me a license to sin? My affront at that very idea I guess is my answer. No is my reply.  I do believe it is possible to discern the Holy Spirit indwelling another person. That is the basis on which I have often said on this forum that I believe our ward bishop is a very Godly man. He defines that practice of the presence of God.

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

After a number of good conversations with you, I get the feeling that your frustrations are centered around the simple fact that LDS beliefs are not the same as your beliefs and you wish we would change ours to be more compatible with yours so we can get along better. Is that accurate?
For example, are you willing to consider that there may be varying degrees of reward (one size does not fit all) in the panoply of salvation?

In your view, who is saved, how are they saved, do they have any responsibility for their salvation, and what are they saved from?

That statement of my intent could not be less accurate. Again, let me emphasis my faith is based more on trust than beliefs. I have said this before on this forum and will hopefully continue to be consistent in saying the same thing. What I wish the Saints would change is exactly the same things that I believe non-LDS Christians need to change and what I specifically need to change in my life. It is hard:

1. I believe we all have too many blind spots – things that others see in us that we don’t see in ourselves. We need to take advantage of those who care enough about us to point out these blind spots to us. I believe the key to emotional and spiritual health is minimizing our blind spots and maximizing our self-awareness without defensiveness. Many people of faith, in my opinion, including myself are replete with blind spots and denial. I would love if we could shed ourselves of our respective biases and prejudices that keep us from helping and serving each other in this regard.

2. I am guilty of wishing the Saints would lose what I think of as a arrogant insistence on being the only true and living Church on earth. That is such a barrier. Some of you have assured me that will never happen, because then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will lose its uniqueness and special position. I don’t agree with that at all. I say, join the Christian family, embrace your role as a branch of the tree of Christianity. This belief is the key dividing mechanism between LDS Christians and all others. However, you all seem to take pride in it and believe it is God’s truth. So I doubt it will change. I just wish someone would explain the last half of D&C 1:30 to me. Saints seem to ignore that God says He is talking to the collective church and not the individual church. Who is the collective church, but the collective Christian family? Some have said the individual church is the ward – that makes no sense to me at all. So I own this desire of mine.

I am unaware (blind spot alert!) that I want the LDS Church to change anything else. Certainly we disagree on non-essential doctrines. I couldn’t care less about that.

For example, are you willing to consider that there may be varying degrees of reward (one size does not fit all) in the panoply of salvation?

Yes. I think I have made that clear.

In your view, who is saved, how are they saved, do they have any responsibility for their salvation, and what are they saved from?

I don’t understand this series of questions. It seems you are getting at Calvinistic things that are pretty foreign to me. Who is saved? The person who acknowledges his or her sin, turns from it, and accepts the atonement. That is the only way I can think of to answer your question. They are saved by actively professing the same, either in the stillness of their own heart, or publicly. It doesn’t matter. I don’t understand the responsibility question. If they don’t want to confess, turn from and profess, no one is making them do so. They are saved from a life without the practice of the presence of Christ via the Holy Spirit.

OK. I am exhausted. I need to go sit out on the back porch with my wife. Once before you kind of scolded me for not answering all your questions. I have done my best. Please let me know if I have missed anything. I can assure you it was not by intent. Happy Easter to all of you.

[Joshua Valentine]

On 4/19/2019 at 3:54 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Sorry this didn’t help.

I’ve had many cogent conversations over the years. It does help to agree on terms. 

I think the lack of specific terms or qualifiers of the word ¨salvation¨ is what brings about the confusion - perhaps this is obvious. What I mean is that there could be confusion just because of ideas and interlacing of ideas themselves (without consideration of the terms used) and there could, of course, be confusion because all of these ideas and their interactions are used under mostly one term ¨salvation¨. The general lack of qualifiers to the word salvation or other independent terms for these different ideas can obviously lead to confusion.

20 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

No worries. I don't quite get your confusion, though. It's a frequent discussion in LDS circles and is crystal clear to me. Perhaps its the same kind of confusion I feel when I hear Catholics describing the cult of Mary and the Saints, the Trinitarians explaining three in one, Evangelicals downplaying works, and the Calvinists trying to describe just about anything. 

While I don´t know what you have been exposed to Bernard Gui in regards to these ideas you list, but they, in more ¨official¨ presentations should not suffer from the same overburdening of one term with so many ideas or permutations of the same idea as ¨Salvation¨ seems to be in LDS Theology. However, I recognize that less studied or careful presenters of these ideas may not use the varied terms and effectively induce similar confusion. If the presenters did use specific terms then I suspect your confusion was based more on the ideas themselves than the terms used. While I suspect Navidad´s confusion stems mainly from the lack of specific terms, not the ideas themselves.  But maybe its the ideas too.

20 hours ago, Navidad said:

The first two paragraphs clearly predict confusion because of "various meanings" and acknowledge that there are differences in "how the word is used." The words are also "used in different contexts" and once again have "different meanings." These differences are not present in non-LDS Christian theology, at least not to such a degree. One might say our view of salvation is much simpler or cleaner. Or a LDS Christian critic could opine it is much easier - too easy in fact! Maybe nothing in that article as I have copied confuses you, but it sures does me and I would guess it confuses most non-LDS Christians who are honest about it. I hope this helps.

But then one factor in all of these interfaces with other systems of ideas is the difficulty to receive the communication of the ideas and the ideas themselves on their own terms, instead of that communication being hindered or the ideas being mangled inside our heads (with our own perspective, understanding, and definitions of those terms, even subconscious effects of all of these on understanding the ideas). So as Navidad said perhaps it is just an issue of ¨others¨ ideas when we already have our own.

That does not mean that effort can effectively be made to overcome these challenges in a significant way.

From an outside perspective, I do look at this issue with ¨salvation¨ even as described by LDS.org as seeming to counter the LDS claim to the simplicity of the LDS Gospel and how it can be understood by a child. While any parsing of a foundational idea can bring it beyond the scope necessary for the effective gospel (and thus beyond the understanding of a child, without contradicting claims to simplicity), it seems just the overpacking of one term is inevitably confusing and counter to ease of understanding.