Calm Posted November 15, 2019 Posted November 15, 2019 18 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. Just to be clear, Nehor is quoting the handbook for apostasy: "As used here, apostasy refers to members who:...Formally join another church and advocate its teachings" (FM source). The handbook online is at least out of date as regards to gay marriage, so this might be intended to be altered as well though (just pointing to the possibility due to the newsroom description seeming to imply a difference between it and actual policy, though that could have just been careless writing in using the 1990 Ensign info for the article and assuming it hadn't been changed). Something that occurred to me and another FM member was wondering what happens for churches that have no formal process of joining, but would understand someone consistently attending or perhaps getting on the community mailing list as a member.
The Nehor Posted November 15, 2019 Posted November 15, 2019 5 minutes ago, Ahab said: 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. No, but that only covers disciplinary councils. If I were a bishop and someone who is ostensibly an active church member told me in n interview that he prayed to the Virgin Mary every night and used a rosary I would not call a disciplinary council but I would try to figure out why and gently encourage them to stop. What you are advocating sounds like hypocrisy or rationalization to near insanity or being so weak-willed you just go along with everyone wherever you happen to be. None of those suggest celestial or even terrestrial qualifications to me. 1
Ahab Posted November 15, 2019 Posted November 15, 2019 9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: 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. This is more complex than you may realize. As I said, I never resigjned my membership in my previous church when I became a member of this church, but I still believe a lot of the things I believed in my previous church because some beliefs ARE compatible. You're focusing on the ones that are not and I said something before about how when choices need to be made between one or the other the goal should be to align with the truth and do what is best rather than only something that may only be good in a more limited sense.
The Nehor Posted November 15, 2019 Posted November 15, 2019 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Calm said: Just to be clear, Nehor is quoting the handbook for apostasy: "As used here, apostasy refers to members who:...Formally join another church and advocate its teachings" (FM source). The handbook online is at least out of date as regards to gay marriage, so this might be intended to be altered as well though (just pointing to the possibility due to the newsroom description seeming to imply a difference between it and actual policy, though that could have just been careless writing in using the 1990 Ensign info for the article and assuming it hadn't been changed). Something that occurred to me and another FM member was wondering what happens for churches that have no formal process of joining, but would understand someone consistently attending or perhaps getting on the community mailing list as a member. Generally no discipline unless they start advocating the other church’s teachings to members or start denigrating our church publicly. It is up to the discretion of the leadership. I doubt that part is out of date. Attending another church’s services is explicitly not cause for discipline by itself though it could be if combined with other situations or actions. Edited November 15, 2019 by The Nehor
The Nehor Posted November 15, 2019 Posted November 15, 2019 7 minutes ago, Ahab said: This is more complex than you may realize. As I said, I never resigjned my membership in my previous church when I became a member of this church, but I still believe a lot of the things I believed in my previous church because some beliefs ARE compatible. You're focusing on the ones that are not and I said something before about how when choices need to be made between one or the other the goal should be to align with the truth and do what is best rather than only something that may only be good in a more limited sense. I never thought I would see mfb accused of making things too simple but here we are...... 2
Ahab Posted November 15, 2019 Posted November 15, 2019 23 minutes ago, The Nehor said: No, but that only covers disciplinary councils. If I were a bishop and someone who is ostensibly an active church member told me in n interview that he prayed to the Virgin Mary every night and used a rosary I would not call a disciplinary council but I would try to figure out why and gently encourage them to stop. Different bishops use different tactics and have different attitudes about things that aren't really a problem, I suppose. 23 minutes ago, The Nehor said: What you are advocating sounds like hypocrisy or rationalization to near insanity or being so weak-willed you just go along with everyone wherever you happen to be. None of those suggest celestial or even terrestrial qualifications to me. Sounds like that to you, you mean. I've seen you not correctly understanding me before. The invitation to all others who are not members of our Church is to bring all of the good you have with you and see if we (with the help of the Lord) can ADD to that. That is what we are all about. So, for example, if someone believes using the rosary and praying to the Blessed Virgin Mary is a good thing, because in some way it helps them to do something that is good, our mission (if we choose to accept it) is to see if there is anything we can ADD to that belief and that custom that would be even better than that. You say you would "gently encourage them to stop doing" what they believe is a good thing to do. How about instead of mentioning anything about stopping you talk about what they can do, instead, that would be even better than doing that. Then they can choose to stop if they want to. It really does no harm for them to do that so there is no reason to make a big deal about it. 1
The Nehor Posted November 15, 2019 Posted November 15, 2019 1 minute ago, Ahab said: Different bishops use different tactics and have different attitudes about things that aren't really a problem, I suppose. Sounds like that to you, you mean. I've seen you not correctly understanding me before. The invitation to all others who are not members of our Church is to bring all of the good you have with you and see if we (with the help of the Lord) can ADD to that. That is what we are all about. So, for example, if someone believes using the rosary and praying to the Blessed Virgin Mary is a good thing, because in some way it helps them to do something that is good, our mission (if we choose to accept it) is to see if there is anything we can ADD to that belief and that custom that would be even better than that. You say you would "gently encourage them to stop doing" what they believe is a good thing to do. How about instead of mentioning anything about stopping you talk about what they can do, instead, that would be even better than doing that. Then they can choose to stop if they want to. It really does no harm for them to do that so there is no reason to make a big deal about it. Every bishop I have known would take that tact. It does no harm? Would you say the same thing if they were offering sacrifices to Zeus, trying to get out of a reincarnation cycle, or performing unspeakable rites to summon Cthulhu? Doctrine MATTERS!!! 3
Meadowchik Posted November 15, 2019 Posted November 15, 2019 53 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: 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. I think observing other rituals can be edifying, even participating when it can be done honestly. But fully participating in both the RCC and LDS Church apparently cannot be done honestly. That space to be able participate authentically as an agnostic atheist was very meaningful to me in my experience at a conference with the CoC hosting an ecumenical service. Very edifying. I shared more about it in my thread "Secular Mormon Sacrament," in case you didn't see it. I'm not saying I'm ready to join the CoC, but the experience really helped me develop my personal values for a potential theology.
Ahab Posted November 15, 2019 Posted November 15, 2019 19 minutes ago, The Nehor said: It does no harm? Would you say the same thing if they were offering sacrifices to Zeus, trying to get out of a reincarnation cycle, or performing unspeakable rites to summon Cthulhu? Doctrine MATTERS!!! Offering sacrifices to Zeus - what kinds of sacrifices? unless it involves harming animals or people, or anything else which is evil, I wouldn't worry about it. trying to get out of a reincarnation cycle - Surprise! There is no reincarnation! So they're out already. So unless trying to get out involves doing something evil I wouldn't worry about it. performing unspeakable rites to summon Cthulhu - again, unless it involved doing something which is evil, I wouldn't worry about it. People can play "pretend" games as much as they want, imaging and believing and doing all kinds of things that are really no big deal, so unless they're doing something which is actually evil, I wouldn't worry about it.
blarsen Posted November 15, 2019 Posted November 15, 2019 18 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. My guess though, is that if the former church heard of your 'defection' to Mormonism, they would be inclined to remove you from the roles . . . less so, though, if they learned about it years later.
Ahab Posted November 15, 2019 Posted November 15, 2019 1 minute ago, blarsen said: My guess though, is that if the former church heard of your 'defection' to Mormonism, they would be inclined to remove you from the roles . . . less so, though, if they learned about it years later. The Church of Christ doesn't keep records of membership like our Church does. Some may not consider me a member anymore but I didn't ever resign my membership in the Church of Christ, or that congregation I like their name and what they stand for, even if it isn't as good or as much as what I stand for in this church which I know is the true Church of Jesus Christ. 1
blarsen Posted November 15, 2019 Posted November 15, 2019 1 hour ago, Ahab said: . . . . . 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. I love it. Makes sense.
JLHPROF Posted November 15, 2019 Posted November 15, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Every bishop I have known would take that tact. It does no harm? Would you say the same thing if they were offering sacrifices to Zeus, trying to get out of a reincarnation cycle, or performing unspeakable rites to summon Cthulhu? Doctrine MATTERS!!! Joseph Smith - "“I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammelled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine” Doctrine absolutely matters. But believing only official Church doctrine isn't required at all. Which is probably good. Edited November 15, 2019 by JLHPROF
mfbukowski Posted November 15, 2019 Posted November 15, 2019 3 hours ago, Ahab said: This is more complex than you may realize. As I said, I never resigjned my membership in my previous church when I became a member of this church, but I still believe a lot of the things I believed in my previous church because some beliefs ARE compatible. You're focusing on the ones that are not and I said something before about how when choices need to be made between one or the other the goal should be to align with the truth and do what is best rather than only something that may only be good in a more limited sense. Trust me, it is not too complex for me. But you cannot rip something out of one context and just plug it into another one, and make it consistent. I can't for the life of me figure out how you can fit substance theology into LDS beliefs and keep it consistent. It can't be done. Transubstantiation for example relates directly to the Trinity and the nature of God and Christ - all of this is based in the context of immaterial substance. Do you believe that the host contains the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ? The priest in blessing forms his hand into a symbol of the three persons in the Trinity and two natures of Christ. In every motion, there are symbols of greater doctrines- every nuance is linked to another. The Trinity works with substance theology- I disagree with it, but it IS a consistent system- IF you accept the premises. It has had 2000 years of debate tweaking the nuances into one consistent view. It is a house remodeled, added to, parts destroyed and rebuilt. Its architecture is unique but it IS a consistent system. Our Father in Heaven is immanent, the Catholic "Father" is transcendent- a combination we cannot find consistent. They have tweaked their doctrine to make it consistent- good for them- but it doesn't work for us. Every detail fits into other details to make a consistent view. You just don't take the living room out of one house and stick it into another without destroying both. Can't be done.
Ahab Posted November 15, 2019 Posted November 15, 2019 7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Trust me, it is not too complex for me. But you cannot rip something out of one context and just plug it into another one, and make it consistent. I can't for the life of me figure out how you can fit substance theology into LDS beliefs and keep it consistent. It can't be done. Transubstantiation for example relates directly to the Trinity and the nature of God and Christ - all of this is based in the context of immaterial substance. Do you believe that the host contains the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ? The priest in blessing forms his hand into a symbol of the three persons in the Trinity and two natures of Christ. In every motion, there are symbols of greater doctrines- every nuance is linked to another. The Trinity works with substance theology- I disagree with it, but it IS a consistent system- IF you accept the premises. It has had 2000 years of debate tweaking the nuances into one consistent view. It is a house remodeled, added to, parts destroyed and rebuilt. Its architecture is unique but it IS a consistent system. Our Father in Heaven is immanent, the Catholic "Father" is transcendent- a combination we cannot find consistent. They have tweaked their doctrine to make it consistent- good for them- but it doesn't work for us. Every detail fits into other details to make a consistent view. You just don't take the living room out of one house and stick it into another without destroying both. Can't be done. You seem to believe I was advocating that someone who is a member of the Catholic church hold tight to some false beliefs they have when joining our church, which is strange, because I never said that someone should. What is it that is difficult for you to understand about our invitation and our mission? We invite others to bring all of the good that they have and see if we can add to the good they already have. I'm not interested in talking about false beliefs with you, or things that aren't good. If you want to talk about any good beliefs you still have that carried over from the Catholic church when you joined this church, that might be something worth talking about... and relevant to my point. I think it's interesting that our Savior chose sacrament symbols that relate to what we eat and drink... what we take into our body... something that gives us life and sustains us. What we eat and drink does become a part of us, and we need our Savior in our life like that.
mfbukowski Posted November 15, 2019 Posted November 15, 2019 1 hour ago, Ahab said: You seem to believe I was advocating that someone who is a member of the Catholic church hold tight to some false beliefs they have when joining our church, which is strange, because I never said that someone should. What is it that is difficult for you to understand about our invitation and our mission? We invite others to bring all of the good that they have and see if we can add to the good they already have. I'm not interested in talking about false beliefs with you, or things that aren't good. If you want to talk about any good beliefs you still have that carried over from the Catholic church when you joined this church, that might be something worth talking about... and relevant to my point. I think it's interesting that our Savior chose sacrament symbols that relate to what we eat and drink... what we take into our body... something that gives us life and sustains us. What we eat and drink does become a part of us, and we need our Savior in our life like that. Nevermind. I'll let whoever reads this judge, if anyone actually cares and is reading it
Meadowchik Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 Maybe this last tangent points to theological best practices: many churches extend open invitations to all while still having "fine print," or conditions for fully participating. Conditions can be important because they can further the church's purpose. I think it follows that the purity and consistency of conditions is essential to a thelogy's integrity.
Recommended Posts