Do Latter-day Saints have the best theology?

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Look up all of these.

1-

"Question:

Why doesn&#039;t the Catholic Church accept Mormon baptism?<br /> <br />

Answer:

The Catholic Church does not recognize Mormon baptism as valid because, although Mormons and Catholics use the same words, those words have completely unrelated meanings for each religion. The Mormon’s very concept of God is infinitely different from that of Christians—even though they call themselves the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Mormons believe that God is only one of many gods who were once men and that each of us in turn can become what God is now. This process of men becoming gods is said to go back infinitely. But of course none of these gods can be infinite if they are multiple and had a beginning and are actually human beings. In Mormons’ view, both Jesus and the Father are what we would call glorified creatures.

They also believe that Jesus came into existence after the Father, and that the Father and the Son are not one in being. Thus, although they use the phrase “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” in their usage this phrase takes on a meaning that is actually polytheistic and pagan rather than trinitarian."

So what?  What is your point?  My point was that someone can become a member of our Church and still remain a member of any other church they are already a member of.  Our invitation to others is to bring all of the good that you have and see if we can add to it.  We're not trying to take anything good away from other people, wherever they got whatever they have that is good.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, blarsen said:

You think?  I'd never thought about this.  Any modern day scripture or pronouncements from the Brethren on this to back up your claim?

Joining another church is considered apostasy and grounds for excommunication iirc, I would think refusing to leave one would be problematic.

I believe if an investigator said I am going to continue to be a member of this church and believe in its teachings after being baptized, the one interviewing would conclude they weren't ready to commit to our faith.

Edited November 15, 2019 by Calm

[InCognitus]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

An LDS member who joins another church gets excommunicated.

And:

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Joining another church is considered apostasy and grounds for excommunication iirc,

I am not in a position to check the church handbook, but I'm pretty sure it states that if a member of the church joins another church, it is not considered apostasy.  I've visited a number of inactive members through the years that were attending or had joined other churches.  They were still on the records of the church and included for visiting.

This is the closest thing I can find in a short search of the church website is this article on  Church Discipline:  https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-discipline   

Quote

Church disciplinary councils are not legal proceedings and are not held to legally try civil or criminal cases, nor are they meant to address things such as failure to attend church regularly, to obey the Church’s code of health or to fulfill Church responsibilities or to settle disputes among members. Disciplinary councils are not used for members who want their names removed from Church records or who have joined another church. Those issues are handled through a simple administrative process.

Church discipline may be required for someone guilty of serious criminal offenses. It is also used to address apostasy — the repeated, clear and open public opposition to the Church, its leaders and its doctrine. If someone seeks to teach as doctrine something that is contrary to the Church’s beliefs, attempts to persuade other Church members to their point of view or publicly insists the Church change its doctrine to align with their personal views, they would be counseled by a local Church leader and asked to cease that practice. If they fail to do so, Church discipline may follow. This also applies to an individual who subscribes to the teachings of apostate groups that engage in practices contrary to Church doctrine, such as polygamy.

The article specifically defines apostasy.  Joining or attending another church would not fall under the definition of apostasy.  The article also specifically says that joining another church is not grounds for a disciplinary council (excommunication), but is handled similar to name removal.

[Calm]

“am not in a position to check the church handbook, but I'm pretty sure it states that if a member of the church joins another church, it is not considered apostasy.” 

That’s right, I had forgotten it had been changed awhile back.  Sorry for the mistake. 

I am practically positive it used to be excommunicable, I think because we once had a debate on whether someone could join another church. 

[mfbukowski]

44 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

The article also specifically says that joining another church is not grounds for a disciplinary council (excommunication), but is handled similar to name removal.

Which means what?

They have de facto removed their names and are treated as such.  That is what it says.

I cannot access the church site at the moment, my log in is messed up and I have not gotten around to fixing it, but as a bishop I recall it was defined as "apostasy" though perhaps it has been changed.  Nevertheless your quote does not exactly support your position.

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

That’s right, I had forgotten it had been changed awhile back.  Sorry for the mistake. 

I am practically positive it used to be excommunicable, I think because we once had a debate on whether someone could join another church. 

Well maybe you are right, but I don't remember that at all

[Calm]

Hmm...this change is dated to have happened at least by 1990.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1990/09/a-chance-to-start-over-church-disciplinary-councils-and-the-restoration-of-blessings?lang=eng

Now I am wondering if it got changed again more recently...or it may be me simply remembering stories of past members being excommunicated.

There was a frequent poster in the past who was a member who chose to join the Catholic Church.  He was also a Luciferian iirc.  I am spacing on his name, but I remember his logo.  I am remembering we were debating whether him joining the RCC was a problem or not.  If someone reminds me of his name, I might be able to track down the conversation. 

Edited November 15, 2019 by Calm

[InCognitus]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

That’s right, I had forgotten it had been changed awhile back.  Sorry for the mistake. 

If it was changed from something else, then it was from more than 25 years ago, because that's when I was a ward clerk and the time I remember it from.  Or maybe it's something different now? 

[Calm]

I found it and found a discussion...mfb happened to quote the 2006 handbook:

Quote

General Handbook of Instructions, Book 1, 2006, excerpted from page 110

When a Disciplinary Council is Mandatory

A disciplinary council must be held when evidence suggests that a member may have committed any of the following transgressions.....

Apostasy

As used here apostasy refers to members who:

1- Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders

2- Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority

3- Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects ....after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

4- Formally join another church

In such cases, excommunication may be necessary if repentance is not evident after counseling and encouragement.

Priesthood leaders must take disciplinary action against apostates to protect Church members. The Savior taught the Nephites that they should continue to minister to a transgressor, "but if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people" (3Nephi 18:31; see also Mosiah 26:36).

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/43042-how-is-the-concept-of-heresy-viewed-in-mormonism/page/3/

 

[InCognitus]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Hmm...this change is dated to have happened at least by 1990.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1990/09/a-chance-to-start-over-church-disciplinary-councils-and-the-restoration-of-blessings?lang=eng

Now I am wondering if it got changed again more recently...or it may be me simply remembering stories of past members being excommunicated.

Well, the language of that article does seem to indicate that it was a change, perhaps recent to the 1990 date.  Regarding disciplinary councils it says:   "They are not designed to settle disputes among members. Nor are they held for members who demand that their names be removed from Church records or who have joined another church; that is now an administrative action."

[Calm]

Just in case you missed it due to posting at the same time, the 2006 handbook:

Quote

As used here apostasy refers to members who...

4- Formally join another church

It is possible it was changed back as I would expect the newsroom to be current.  If someone doesn’t check, I can ask the bishops etc of FM to check their handbook. 

Pity my husband is a Primary teacher now and it takes more than walking into another room to access the handbook. 

Edited November 15, 2019 by Calm

[InCognitus]

Just now, Calm said:

Just in case you missed it due to posting at the same time, the 2006 handbook:

I did see it, but that seems to contradict what is said in the current newsroom article (link found in my first post on this topic).  I wonder if the current wording is different?

[sunstoned]

If someone is inactive and finds another church where they are happy, I doubt the church (Bishop or SP) would take any court action.  It would serve no purpose.

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

If someone is inactive and finds another church where they are happy, I doubt the church (Bishop or SP) would take any court action.  It would serve no purpose.

It may be written that way to allow ease of excommunication for those who leave the faith and then join certain evangelical funded or other anti Mormon ministries while using their Church membership as part of their resume.   There is no need to ask about beliefs or practices, etc; just “have you formally joined another church?...[yes]...our well wishes on your official qualification as an apostate”.

We had a couple of members use their current ‘in name only’ membership status for self promotion as a lecturer on all things LDS up in Canada. One older woman had joined the Church for that reason specifically according to the missionaries (though that may have been speculation turned fact through repetition) and another one I personally knew, his wife had been a devout member, but had recently died of cancer.  I was quite shocked to learn he had turned into a semiprofessional antimormon teaching classes since the RS had provided extensive help to his wife in caring for their family in the last year of her life. Even if he disagreed with our beliefs, going antimormon instead of treating us as a misguided, but generally kind community seemed dysfunctional to me.

Edited November 15, 2019 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, InCognitus said:

They were still on the records of the church and included for visiting.

I don't think that helps your case much because the church probably didn't know that they had joined another church.

[Meadowchik]

20 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I've heard this before here and I do take a wee bit of exception to it. It's often used to show that converting to the LDS faith isn't that big of a switch because you get to bring what's good with you. However, it implicitly implies (redundant..?) that things that are not compatible with the LDS faith are not good. It also leaves the impression that things will not have to be removed.

A personal example. I have great love and devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, hence my avatar. I pray to Her to quite frequently and I absolutely love the rosary. I also love Eucharastic Adoration, where the Blessed Sacrament is placed in view for believers to adore. It is a time of prayer and meditation in the presence of God. It is something I do 1-3 times a week (our cathedral has perpetual adoration, so you can go whenever you want). For me, these things are great goods in my life.

If I were to convert, these would be religious practices that I would have to delete. I could not bring with me "all" the good that I have. I would to remove a lot of it and replace it with LDS stuff. That's why I dislike that statement. It feels a little... weaselly to me. The only "good" that I could bring with me in conversion is that which is already LDS. Then I'd have to replace all the rest. That's what religious conversion is, of course, but President Hinkley's statement downplays that and sounds more like PR than a statement of how conversion works.

Yes, and to join another church wouldn't you as s Catholic no longer be eligible to take the sacraments?

I think those who insist you can have both worlds are inaccurately portraying it. Furthermore, from a technical perspective it's interesting that if you followed their advice, joined the LDS Church, then returned to Catholic communion (after any needed reconciliation with the RCC) you wouldn't technically be "joining" another church according to the LDS rule on its face. And you should expect a continued LDS full fellowship, according to the above advice. But that doesn't seem to be in line with the spirit of the law (of either church).

[Thinking]

Does best = correct?

[The Nehor]

22 hours ago, Ahab said:

Yes I remember playing that card game and I concur with your findings.  I liked playing a card game called "Magic, the Gathering" much better.

Robots do know how to have fun, at least sometimes.

I played that a little when I was a teenager. I got bored with it. I might still have cards in a box somewhere. I should dig them up.

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Look up all of these.

1-https://www.catholic.com/qa/why-doesnt-the-catholic-church-accept-mormon-baptism

"Question:

Why doesn&#039;t the Catholic Church accept Mormon baptism?<br /> <br />

Answer:

The Catholic Church does not recognize Mormon baptism as valid because, although Mormons and Catholics use the same words, those words have completely unrelated meanings for each religion. The Mormon’s very concept of God is infinitely different from that of Christians—even though they call themselves the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Mormons believe that God is only one of many gods who were once men and that each of us in turn can become what God is now. This process of men becoming gods is said to go back infinitely. But of course none of these gods can be infinite if they are multiple and had a beginning and are actually human beings. In Mormons’ view, both Jesus and the Father are what we would call glorified creatures.

They also believe that Jesus came into existence after the Father, and that the Father and the Son are not one in being. Thus, although they use the phrase “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” in their usage this phrase takes on a meaning that is actually polytheistic and pagan rather than trinitarian."

While technically true if there is any pique about them not accepting our baptism we cannot scream unfair when our canon explicitly describes all other Christian baptisms as “dead works”.

Edited November 15, 2019 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

16 hours ago, Ahab said:

So what?  What is your point?  My point was that someone can become a member of our Church and still remain a member of any other church they are already a member of.  Our invitation to others is to bring all of the good that you have and see if we can add to it.  We're not trying to take anything good away from other people, wherever they got whatever they have that is good.

They can but they will be encouraged not to in most cases. I have never known anyone who I would consider well-grounded and faithful in the gospel that routinely attended other church services for worship purposes.

[The Nehor]

In the handbook a disciplinary council is mandatory if a member formally joins another church AND advocates its teachings. I think in most cases this means they are advocating them to other church members. Attending another church is not cause for a disciplinary council.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Thinking said:

Does best = correct?

I hope so. Holding something as truth solely out of mercenary motives about it being useful or helpful is like sawing off a tree branch you are sitting on. It ignores the real purpose of discovering truth.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes, and to join another church wouldn't you as s Catholic no longer be eligible to take the sacraments?

I think those who insist you can have both worlds are inaccurately portraying it. Furthermore, from a technical perspective it's interesting that if you followed their advice, joined the LDS Church, then returned to Catholic communion (after any needed reconciliation with the RCC) you wouldn't technically be "joining" another church according to the LDS rule on its face. And you should expect a continued LDS full fellowship, according to the above advice. But that doesn't seem to be in line with the spirit of the law (of either church).

Going to a high mass in Latin and receiving communion and then going to the temple and doing an endowment session?

Doing initiatories?

There is so much there that is theologically contradictory I would probably explode

Trying to do both paths simultaneously seems to me worse than doing nothing.

At least doing nothing is consistent.

[Ahab]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

In the handbook a disciplinary council is mandatory if a member formally joins another church AND advocates its teachings. I think in most cases this means they are advocating them to other church members. Attending another church is not cause for a disciplinary council.

Anything in the handbook about members of other churches joining our church and still attending worship meetings at their other church society, sometimes, while also attending worship meetings at our church?  Not withdrawing their membership status from their previous church, and still using things like a rosary or a cross, or praying to the Blessed Virgin Mary?  I can't imagine how that would be a problem, unless maybe they personally teach contradictory doctrines.  I see it as something like living in 2 countries, or kingdoms, each with some different laws and customs to be followed while there.  Acting more like a Catholic when going to the Catholic church, and more like a latter-day saint when going to our Church, being a citizen of both countries or kingdoms.

I'm contemplating having a home in both the celestial and terrestrial, and maybe also the telestial kingdoms or orders of heaven.  Since I'll probably have some family members in each of the kingdoms and will want to visit them often, I'm sure.

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

In the handbook a disciplinary council is mandatory if a member formally joins another church AND advocates its teachings. I think in most cases this means they are advocating them to other church members. Attending another church is not cause for a disciplinary council.

Thanks. I knew it was in there I just couldn't look it up.

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I can't imagine how that would be a problem, unless maybe they personally teach contradictory doctrines. 

Uh, yeah, they do.

Mary is not a "co-redemptrix" with Christ.

The body blood soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ himself is not actially present in a piece of bread.

One would have to be totally ignorant of theology and Doctrine in order to think that they are compatible.

Edited November 15, 2019 by mfbukowski