Baptism, Marriage, and the Kingdom of God

[Navidad]

Good Morning from sunny, windy, and chilly Chihuahua. I am putting my foot back in this forum after a seven-month absence in the hope that I can find some clarity on a few things. I seek clarity in understanding LDS doctrine. Certainly, that is appropriate for this board. I know that on this board there are academics, former and perhaps present bishops, stake presidents, etc. I seek to understand, and I hope you will help me. I have no other agenda. Please believe me in that.

We all have different aspects of our lives and ourselves that help define who we are – our identity as a person. They are vitally important to us as we live day-to-day. It is in that spirit that I seek to understand. As one who is into my third year of attending a ward of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a non-LDS Christian, I often seek to dig deeply into LDS beliefs and doctrine. I seek, not to debate or argue, but to understand my deeply personal reaction to some things, and then to correlate that to the 190 years of tension between LDS and non-LDS Christians. It is, however, mostly personal for me. I hope you can understand that as I seek clarification on three issues:

First, I have a very strong sense of self as a Christian, one who’s salvation is settled and whose exaltation (sanctification, as I term it) is incomplete, ongoing, and will continue way beyond the veil. I believe that LDS doctrine teaches that baptism is a salvific ordinance and can only be performed by one with proper authority, that of an LDS priesthood holder. Since I was baptized by immersion at 7 years of age by a Mennonite/Baptist/Brethren minister my baptism, essential for salvation is of no effect. In other words, I have not experienced salvation and confirmation, essential and initial way-points necessary to be on the road to exaltation. So, my sense of self as one who has experienced salvation and is still experiencing sanctification (exaltation) is in error. This first very important sense of self is false. The answer to “is a non-LDS Christian a Christian in the salvific sense” is no. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has within it the only legitimate means of salvation, of which proper baptism is the initial and an essential way-point in this and any future dispensation. Correct?

Second, I have a strong sense of self as a member of the family of God. I grew up singing in church “I’m so glad I’m a part of the family of God, I’ve been washed in the fountain, cleansed by His blood. Joint heirs with Jesus as I travel this sod, for I’m part of the family, the family of God.” This family is far more important to me than my biological family. In this sense, I correlate the Family of God on earth (the Christian family – a big tree with many branches) with the Kingdom of God on earth. Three weeks ago, in sacrament service a returning temple president spoke. He eloquently explained how only the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are the Kingdom of God on earth in this dispensation. So, my second sense of self went down the tubes that morning, that of being a member of the greater “family of God”- “the Kingdom of God” on this earth at this time. I am outside that family right now and will remain so until in this life or the next I accept the ordinances of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Without baptism by the proper authority, no salvation – without the means of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, no membership in the Kingdom of God on earth at this or any future time.

Third, I have a strong sense of self as a husband. This is very important to my sense of self. In 2020, my wife and I will experience our 50^th anniversary. I just began reading one of Brian Hales’ books on polygamy. I am very much involved in trying to understand the non-LDS colonies here in Mexico and in contributing to reporter’s and other’s understanding of the relationships of the recently impacted folks to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is indeed a complex relationship. There are many familial connections and a leading LDS figure here in Chihuahua dedicated the grave at one of the funeral services for one of those killed. I digress, sorry. On the first page of the preface of his book, Dr. Hales states “"I reasoned that without proper authority there could be no legitimate marriage; and without legitimate marriage, there could be no genuine plural marriage." That sentence really struck me, perhaps not in the way it was intended. It seems to me he is saying that, like baptism, marriage absent proper authority (code words for being administered by one with a certain level of the priesthood) is illegitimate. No proper authority – no legitimate marriage – henceforth all marriages outside of proper authority are illegitimate. My marriage to my wife is illegitimate in the eyes of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He didn’t appear to be speaking just to the sealing aspect of a temple marriage and future exaltation– but at the very core of non-LDS marriage’s legitimacy. Certainly, the Church cannot declare null and void the civil aspect of my marriage, but it seems to take away the spiritual validity (legitimacy) of it which is of course much more important to me.  

Unless I am re-baptized in this dispensation or the next, my salvation has no entrance door; without membership in the Church of Jesus Christ I am not a member of the Kingdom of God in this dispensation on this earth, and with marriage outside of “proper authority” I am living in an illegitimate marital relationship. Therefore, according to LDS doctrinal positions, all three of my strongest senses of self are self-deceiving, null and void? Is that correct? If not, what have I misstated or misunderstood? What is left of me?  

Thanks for your patience in reading this. Those of you who remember my posts know I can be wordy. I am simply trying to accurately and without ill will describe something that is so very important to me. If I am misstating the real live, bottom line, no kidding position of the Church, please let me know what I have misunderstood and misstated. I won't argue with you. I am here to listen. Thanks so much.

[Ahab]

16 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Good Morning from sunny, windy, and chilly Chihuahua. I am putting my foot back in this forum after a seven-month absence in the hope that I can find some clarity on a few things. I seek clarity in understanding LDS doctrine. Certainly, that is appropriate for this board. I know that on this board there are academics, former and perhaps present bishops, stake presidents, etc. I seek to understand, and I hope you will help me. I have no other agenda. Please believe me in that.

We all have different aspects of our lives and ourselves that help define who we are – our identity as a person. They are vitally important to us as we live day-to-day. It is in that spirit that I seek to understand. As one who is into my third year of attending a ward of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a non-LDS Christian, I often seek to dig deeply into LDS beliefs and doctrine. I seek, not to debate or argue, but to understand my deeply personal reaction to some things, and then to correlate that to the 190 years of tension between LDS and non-LDS Christians. It is, however, mostly personal for me. I hope you can understand that as I seek clarification on three issues:

First, I have a very strong sense of self as a Christian, one who’s salvation is settled and whose exaltation (sanctification, as I term it) is incomplete, ongoing, and will continue way beyond the veil. I believe that LDS doctrine teaches that baptism is a salvific ordinance and can only be performed by one with proper authority, that of an LDS priesthood holder. Since I was baptized by immersion at 7 years of age by a Mennonite/Baptist/Brethren minister my baptism, essential for salvation is of no effect. In other words, I have not experienced salvation and confirmation, essential and initial way-points necessary to be on the road to exaltation. So, my sense of self as one who has experienced salvation and is still experiencing sanctification (exaltation) is in error. This first very important sense of self is false. The answer to “is a non-LDS Christian a Christian in the salvific sense” is no. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has within it the only legitimate means of salvation, of which proper baptism is the initial and an essential way-point in this and any future dispensation. Correct?

Second, I have a strong sense of self as a member of the family of God. I grew up singing in church “I’m so glad I’m a part of the family of God, I’ve been washed in the fountain, cleansed by His blood. Joint heirs with Jesus as I travel this sod, for I’m part of the family, the family of God.” This family is far more important to me than my biological family. In this sense, I correlate the Family of God on earth (the Christian family – a big tree with many branches) with the Kingdom of God on earth. Three weeks ago, in sacrament service a returning temple president spoke. He eloquently explained how only the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are the Kingdom of God on earth in this dispensation. So, my second sense of self went down the tubes that morning, that of being a member of the greater “family of God”- “the Kingdom of God” on this earth at this time. I am outside that family right now and will remain so until in this life or the next I accept the ordinances of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Without baptism by the proper authority, no salvation – without the means of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, no membership in the Kingdom of God on earth at this or any future time.

Third, I have a strong sense of self as a husband. This is very important to my sense of self. In 2020, my wife and I will experience our 50^th anniversary. I just began reading one of Brian Hales’ books on polygamy. I am very much involved in trying to understand the non-LDS colonies here in Mexico and in contributing to reporter’s and other’s understanding of the relationships of the recently impacted folks to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is indeed a complex relationship. There are many familial connections and a leading LDS figure here in Chihuahua dedicated the grave at one of the funeral services for one of those killed. I digress, sorry. On the first page of the preface of his book, Dr. Hales states “"I reasoned that without proper authority there could be no legitimate marriage; and without legitimate marriage, there could be no genuine plural marriage." That sentence really struck me, perhaps not in the way it was intended. It seems to me he is saying that, like baptism, marriage absent proper authority (code words for being administered by one with a certain level of the priesthood) is illegitimate. No proper authority – no legitimate marriage – henceforth all marriages outside of proper authority are illegitimate. My marriage to my wife is illegitimate in the eyes of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He didn’t appear to be speaking just to the sealing aspect of a temple marriage and future exaltation– but at the very core of non-LDS marriage’s legitimacy. Certainly, the Church cannot declare null and void the civil aspect of my marriage, but it seems to take away the spiritual validity (legitimacy) of it which is of course much more important to me.  

Unless I am re-baptized in this dispensation or the next, my salvation has no entrance door; without membership in the Church of Jesus Christ I am not a member of the Kingdom of God in this dispensation on this earth, and with marriage outside of “proper authority” I am living in an illegitimate marital relationship. Therefore, according to LDS doctrinal positions, all three of my strongest senses of self are self-deceiving, null and void? Is that correct? If not, what have I misstated or misunderstood? What is left of me?  

Thanks for your patience in reading this. Those of you who remember my posts know I can be wordy. I am simply trying to accurately and without ill will describe something that is so very important to me. If I am misstating the real live, bottom line, no kidding position of the Church, please let me know what I have misunderstood and misstated. I won't argue with you. I am here to listen. Thanks so much.

Yes, your understanding of our perspective regarding baptism and marriage is correct .  You are not yet saved, or at least not fully saved, but it appears you know how to be so all you need to do is take the steps necessary for you to be baptized by someone with the proper authority in the kingdom of God.  You sound like you want to be a Christian disciple and follow Christ as well as you can, and since you have the proper knowledge necessary all you need to do now is do what our Lord would have you do.  Get baptized, by someone with our Lord's authority to baptize you.

I do want to point out that you are legitimately married in your civil marriage as long as you are legitimately married according to the laws of the land where you live.  That makes it a legitimate civil marriage. It just won't continue after death unless you get sealed in a temple of our Lord by the power of our Lord's priesthood.  So you are half way there.  You are or at least appear to be married for time, just not for eternity.  And it appears that you know what to do to make that happen, too.  All that is left for you now is for you to do what you need to do to receive those ordinances.

Edited December 5, 2019 by Ahab

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Good Morning from sunny, windy, and chilly Chihuahua. I am putting my foot back in this forum after a seven-month absence in the hope that I can find some clarity on a few things. I seek clarity in understanding LDS doctrine. Certainly, that is appropriate for this board. I know that on this board there are academics, former and perhaps present bishops, stake presidents, etc. I seek to understand, and I hope you will help me. I have no other agenda. Please believe me in that.

We all have different aspects of our lives and ourselves that help define who we are – our identity as a person. They are vitally important to us as we live day-to-day. It is in that spirit that I seek to understand. As one who is into my third year of attending a ward of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a non-LDS Christian, I often seek to dig deeply into LDS beliefs and doctrine. I seek, not to debate or argue, but to understand my deeply personal reaction to some things, and then to correlate that to the 190 years of tension between LDS and non-LDS Christians. It is, however, mostly personal for me. I hope you can understand that as I seek clarification on three issues:

First, I have a very strong sense of self as a Christian, one who’s salvation is settled and whose exaltation (sanctification, as I term it) is incomplete, ongoing, and will continue way beyond the veil. I believe that LDS doctrine teaches that baptism is a salvific ordinance and can only be performed by one with proper authority, that of an LDS priesthood holder. Since I was baptized by immersion at 7 years of age by a Mennonite/Baptist/Brethren minister my baptism, essential for salvation is of no effect. In other words, I have not experienced salvation and confirmation, essential and initial way-points necessary to be on the road to exaltation. So, my sense of self as one who has experienced salvation and is still experiencing sanctification (exaltation) is in error. This first very important sense of self is false. The answer to “is a non-LDS Christian a Christian in the salvific sense” is no. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has within it the only legitimate means of salvation, of which proper baptism is the initial and an essential way-point in this and any future dispensation. Correct?

Second, I have a strong sense of self as a member of the family of God. I grew up singing in church “I’m so glad I’m a part of the family of God, I’ve been washed in the fountain, cleansed by His blood. Joint heirs with Jesus as I travel this sod, for I’m part of the family, the family of God.” This family is far more important to me than my biological family. In this sense, I correlate the Family of God on earth (the Christian family – a big tree with many branches) with the Kingdom of God on earth. Three weeks ago, in sacrament service a returning temple president spoke. He eloquently explained how only the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are the Kingdom of God on earth in this dispensation. So, my second sense of self went down the tubes that morning, that of being a member of the greater “family of God”- “the Kingdom of God” on this earth at this time. I am outside that family right now and will remain so until in this life or the next I accept the ordinances of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Without baptism by the proper authority, no salvation – without the means of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, no membership in the Kingdom of God on earth at this or any future time.

Third, I have a strong sense of self as a husband. This is very important to my sense of self. In 2020, my wife and I will experience our 50^th anniversary. I just began reading one of Brian Hales’ books on polygamy. I am very much involved in trying to understand the non-LDS colonies here in Mexico and in contributing to reporter’s and other’s understanding of the relationships of the recently impacted folks to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is indeed a complex relationship. There are many familial connections and a leading LDS figure here in Chihuahua dedicated the grave at one of the funeral services for one of those killed. I digress, sorry. On the first page of the preface of his book, Dr. Hales states “"I reasoned that without proper authority there could be no legitimate marriage; and without legitimate marriage, there could be no genuine plural marriage." That sentence really struck me, perhaps not in the way it was intended. It seems to me he is saying that, like baptism, marriage absent proper authority (code words for being administered by one with a certain level of the priesthood) is illegitimate. No proper authority – no legitimate marriage – henceforth all marriages outside of proper authority are illegitimate. My marriage to my wife is illegitimate in the eyes of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He didn’t appear to be speaking just to the sealing aspect of a temple marriage and future exaltation– but at the very core of non-LDS marriage’s legitimacy. Certainly, the Church cannot declare null and void the civil aspect of my marriage, but it seems to take away the spiritual validity (legitimacy) of it which is of course much more important to me.  

Unless I am re-baptized in this dispensation or the next, my salvation has no entrance door; without membership in the Church of Jesus Christ I am not a member of the Kingdom of God in this dispensation on this earth, and with marriage outside of “proper authority” I am living in an illegitimate marital relationship. Therefore, according to LDS doctrinal positions, all three of my strongest senses of self are self-deceiving, null and void? Is that correct? If not, what have I misstated or misunderstood? What is left of me?  

Thanks for your patience in reading this. Those of you who remember my posts know I can be wordy. I am simply trying to accurately and without ill will describe something that is so very important to me. If I am misstating the real live, bottom line, no kidding position of the Church, please let me know what I have misunderstood and misstated. I won't argue with you. I am here to listen. Thanks so much.

Welcome back Navidad.  I hope you and your family are safe and things are more tame in your neck of the woods!  I was thinking about you and your welfare after reading about all the happenings with Mormon colonies down in Mexico, that you live among. 

As you well know, our understanding of "salvation" is very different from yours.  We are basically universalists in terms of salvation.  It is not black and white saved (heaven), not saved (hell) for us.  But yes, you are correct that we believe that baptism is required for exaltation (to become Gods - very different from your version of salvation).  Two VERY different things.  From what I understand, the general Christian view of "salvation" is equivalent to the Latter-day Saint view of the Terrestrial Kingdom - not married, with Christ, not God's, and saved to glory as angels.  So, one really shouldn't feel offended or concerned that we are taking something from them, but instead we are offering something more than they ever imagined.

In regards to the bold part above.  I disagree completely.  The church acknowledges the spiritual validity of the sacred unity of marriage between a man and wife, and does not take that away from you in the least.  In the proclamation to the world on the family, it states, "marriage is ordained of God...".  It does not specify temple marriage.  Again, we are offering something more enduring than what your faith even teaches - eternal companionship and marriage.  Not "'till death do you part".  So, again, we are not taking anything from you, but offering something more...

Edited December 5, 2019 by pogi

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Yes, your understanding of our perspective regarding baptism and marriage is correct .  You are not yet saved, or at least not fully saved, but it appears you know how to be so all you need to do is take the steps necessary for you to be baptized by someone with the proper authority in the kingdom of God.  You sound like you want to be a Christian disciple and follow Christ as well as you can, and since you have the proper knowledge necessary all you need to do now is do what our Lord would have you do.  Get baptized, by someone with our Lord's authority to baptize you.

I do want to point out that you are legitimately married in your civil marriage as long as you are legitimately married according to the laws of the land where you live.  That makes it a legitimate civil marriage. It just won't continue after death unless you get sealed in a temple of our Lord by the power of our Lord's priesthood.  So you are half way there.  You are or at least appear to be married for time, just not for eternity.  And it appears that you know what to do to make that happen, too.  All that is left for you now is for you to do what you need to do to receive those ordinances.

Thanks very much Ahab. I appreciate your reply. I have written and asked Dr. Hales what he means by "without proper authority there can be no legitimate marriage." I hope to hear from him some time. Take care, Navidad

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, Navidad said:

Thanks very much Ahab. I appreciate your reply. I have written and asked Dr. Hales what he means by "without proper authority there can be no legitimate marriage." I hope to hear from him some time. Take care, Navidad

I commend you for wanting to go to the source of that statement but there are other people who know what he meant that you could ask for clarification.  But still I commend you for wanting to know what he meant since he is the person who said it.

Another thing you could try is to see if anyone else has said anything like that, with maybe some more details that he didn't mention.  And of course you can also pray for God to help you, who can teach you the truth of all things through the power of the Holy  Ghost.

[rpn]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Without baptism by the proper authority, no salvation – without the means of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, no membership in the Kingdom of God on earth at this or any future time.

 

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

“is a non-LDS Christian a Christian in the salvific sense” is no. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has within it the only legitimate means of salvation, of which proper baptism is the initial and an essential way-point in this and any future dispensation. Correct?

Quote

I am living in an illegitimate marital relationship.

I don't believe any of your takeaways are consistent with the doctrines espoused in the restored Church of Jesus Christ.   

We believe every single person* will be saved (in the way protestants talk about being saved, ie resurrected and be in heaven).   It is exaltation where we live with God and Jesus and with our families because we have become like Them that is achievable only with the proper ordinances.    And every single person will have an opportunity either in this life or the next before resurrection to receive those ordinances and make those covenants required to do that.   So it is not at all an exclusionary doctrine.

We also believe that all marriages between a man and a woman are legitimate.   (I won't be surprised to learn eventually that all civil marriages are in that category with God, even though the restored Church of Jesus Christ doesn't recognize same sex marriages that way, probably because it is important not to mislead those entering into such marriages into believing they can be eternal or make eternal families).    What we don't believe is that a civil marriage is enough for exaltation (see above).   Again, the ordinances that are required to be viable in the eternities will all be completed by proxy so they can be accepted before resurrection and judgment, if people didn't have that opportunity here.

 

*except the very small group who knew God personally on earth having received the required ordinances on earth by proper authority and then rejecting Jesus Christ and are there for "sons" of perdition (which presumably would also include any women who were in that category

[Calm]

The Church does not require people to be remarried if married without what they see as Priesthood authority in order to be considered married; they do require people to be baptized again by those in authority to be considered members.

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Thanks very much Ahab. I appreciate your reply. I have written and asked Dr. Hales what he means by "without proper authority there can be no legitimate marriage." I hope to hear from him some time. Take care, Navidad

Just in case it might help you to know what I think he meant when he said that, I'll tell you that I think he meant that for anyone to legally officiate in a marriage ceremony, that person must have the legal authority to do that.  Legitimate refers to be legally binding or valid, just to be clear on that point.  So for example, in a civil marriage where the authority comes from a civil government, the person who officiates in a civil marriage ceremony must have the legal authority of the civil government to legally officiate in that marriage.  Some citizen without that legal authorization may know how to do it, or what needs to be said at a marriage ceremony, but without the legal authorization to officiate in a marriage the civil government will not consider that marriage to be legally valid or binding.  That's why bishops or temple wedding officiators in the Church must also get authorization from local governments to officiate in a civil marriage for time, whether in or outside of a temple.  They get the legal authority to officiate in an eternal marriage from God, through the President of the Church who holds those keys of the kingdom of God,  and they get the legal authority to officiate in a time only marriage, a marriage that pertains only to this world, from someone in a local government who can authorize them to officiate in those marriage ceremonies.

My bishop in my local ward officiated in my civil marriage ceremony and he had the proper legal authority from the civil government to do that.  That marriage was and still is valid or binding for time only, though.  My wife and I haven't been sealed in a temple of the Lord yet but we are working on getting that done because we want to be married to each other for eternity, not just for time only.  Our civil marriage is still legitimate, though, since it was legally authorized by someone with the authority of the civil government. Our bishop at the time we got married had the "proper authority" to officiate in our civil time only marriage.  He just didn't have the authority or legal authorization to officiate in our eternal marriage, and someone else with that proper authority will do that for my wife and I when my wife and I are ready for it.

Edited December 5, 2019 by Ahab

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, Navidad said:

.................................... “"I reasoned that without proper authority there could be no legitimate marriage; and without legitimate marriage, there could be no genuine plural marriage." That sentence really struck me, perhaps not in the way it was intended. It seems to me he is saying that, like baptism, marriage absent proper authority (code words for being administered by one with a certain level of the priesthood) is illegitimate. No proper authority – no legitimate marriage – henceforth all marriages outside of proper authority are illegitimate. My marriage to my wife is illegitimate in the eyes of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He didn’t appear to be speaking just to the sealing aspect of a temple marriage and future exaltation– but at the very core of non-LDS marriage’s legitimacy. Certainly, the Church cannot declare null and void the civil aspect of my marriage, but it seems to take away the spiritual validity (legitimacy) of it which is of course much more important to me.  ............................

Hales' statement is far too extreme.  The LDS Church certainly recognizes marriages solemnized in other religions, or civilly, but only for time -- in this life.  Your marriage is certainly not illegitimate.  Moreover, when your and your wife's lives are at an end in this world, proxy sealing will take place for the both of you for eternity.  Conditional, of course, on your acceptance on the other side of the veil.

Aside from that, you seem to have mastered LDS lingo.  Hope you and your loved ones are safe down there in Chihuahua.  And Feliz Navidad!!  🎅

[The Nehor]

15 hours ago, Navidad said:

Good Morning from sunny, windy, and chilly Chihuahua. I am putting my foot back in this forum after a seven-month absence in the hope that I can find some clarity on a few things. I seek clarity in understanding LDS doctrine. Certainly, that is appropriate for this board. I know that on this board there are academics, former and perhaps present bishops, stake presidents, etc. I seek to understand, and I hope you will help me. I have no other agenda. Please believe me in that.

We all have different aspects of our lives and ourselves that help define who we are – our identity as a person. They are vitally important to us as we live day-to-day. It is in that spirit that I seek to understand. As one who is into my third year of attending a ward of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a non-LDS Christian, I often seek to dig deeply into LDS beliefs and doctrine. I seek, not to debate or argue, but to understand my deeply personal reaction to some things, and then to correlate that to the 190 years of tension between LDS and non-LDS Christians. It is, however, mostly personal for me. I hope you can understand that as I seek clarification on three issues:

First, I have a very strong sense of self as a Christian, one who’s salvation is settled and whose exaltation (sanctification, as I term it) is incomplete, ongoing, and will continue way beyond the veil. I believe that LDS doctrine teaches that baptism is a salvific ordinance and can only be performed by one with proper authority, that of an LDS priesthood holder. Since I was baptized by immersion at 7 years of age by a Mennonite/Baptist/Brethren minister my baptism, essential for salvation is of no effect. In other words, I have not experienced salvation and confirmation, essential and initial way-points necessary to be on the road to exaltation. So, my sense of self as one who has experienced salvation and is still experiencing sanctification (exaltation) is in error. This first very important sense of self is false. The answer to “is a non-LDS Christian a Christian in the salvific sense” is no. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has within it the only legitimate means of salvation, of which proper baptism is the initial and an essential way-point in this and any future dispensation. Correct?

Second, I have a strong sense of self as a member of the family of God. I grew up singing in church “I’m so glad I’m a part of the family of God, I’ve been washed in the fountain, cleansed by His blood. Joint heirs with Jesus as I travel this sod, for I’m part of the family, the family of God.” This family is far more important to me than my biological family. In this sense, I correlate the Family of God on earth (the Christian family – a big tree with many branches) with the Kingdom of God on earth. Three weeks ago, in sacrament service a returning temple president spoke. He eloquently explained how only the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are the Kingdom of God on earth in this dispensation. So, my second sense of self went down the tubes that morning, that of being a member of the greater “family of God”- “the Kingdom of God” on this earth at this time. I am outside that family right now and will remain so until in this life or the next I accept the ordinances of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Without baptism by the proper authority, no salvation – without the means of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, no membership in the Kingdom of God on earth at this or any future time.

Third, I have a strong sense of self as a husband. This is very important to my sense of self. In 2020, my wife and I will experience our 50^th anniversary. I just began reading one of Brian Hales’ books on polygamy. I am very much involved in trying to understand the non-LDS colonies here in Mexico and in contributing to reporter’s and other’s understanding of the relationships of the recently impacted folks to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is indeed a complex relationship. There are many familial connections and a leading LDS figure here in Chihuahua dedicated the grave at one of the funeral services for one of those killed. I digress, sorry. On the first page of the preface of his book, Dr. Hales states “"I reasoned that without proper authority there could be no legitimate marriage; and without legitimate marriage, there could be no genuine plural marriage." That sentence really struck me, perhaps not in the way it was intended. It seems to me he is saying that, like baptism, marriage absent proper authority (code words for being administered by one with a certain level of the priesthood) is illegitimate. No proper authority – no legitimate marriage – henceforth all marriages outside of proper authority are illegitimate. My marriage to my wife is illegitimate in the eyes of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He didn’t appear to be speaking just to the sealing aspect of a temple marriage and future exaltation– but at the very core of non-LDS marriage’s legitimacy. Certainly, the Church cannot declare null and void the civil aspect of my marriage, but it seems to take away the spiritual validity (legitimacy) of it which is of course much more important to me.  

Unless I am re-baptized in this dispensation or the next, my salvation has no entrance door; without membership in the Church of Jesus Christ I am not a member of the Kingdom of God in this dispensation on this earth, and with marriage outside of “proper authority” I am living in an illegitimate marital relationship. Therefore, according to LDS doctrinal positions, all three of my strongest senses of self are self-deceiving, null and void? Is that correct? If not, what have I misstated or misunderstood? What is left of me?  

Thanks for your patience in reading this. Those of you who remember my posts know I can be wordy. I am simply trying to accurately and without ill will describe something that is so very important to me. If I am misstating the real live, bottom line, no kidding position of the Church, please let me know what I have misunderstood and misstated. I won't argue with you. I am here to listen. Thanks so much.

First Point - Yep

Second Point - Yep

Third Point- Nope, your marriage is perfectly valid. It just ends at death and of course does not have the blessings associated with the covenants temple marriage involves. Good news: There is the option to upgrade.

As to what is left of you: a child of God, which is enough. 

Attaching your self worth and identity to your own self conception in general strikes me as a house built on sand. I find that God often tears down things that are so very important to me because they were or had the potential to become idols even if they were not overt sins.

[CV75]

17 hours ago, Navidad said:

Thanks very much Ahab. I appreciate your reply. I have written and asked Dr. Hales what he means by "without proper authority there can be no legitimate marriage." I hope to hear from him some time. Take care, Navidad

This phrase ("without proper authority there can be no legitimate marriage") only applies within the jurisdiction that one belongs to (whether voluntarily, or as in some countries and under some laws, not). On one hand we have justices of the peace that fulfill the proper standard; on the other, common law; on the other, churches with their various faith-informed interpretations and practices.

According to D&C 132:7 the jurisdiction is the kingdom of God according to the belief system of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: "All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead."

We invite people to believe and put their faith this, but also understand the many reasons why they might not.

[Navidad]

On 12/5/2019 at 12:53 PM, pogi said:

Welcome back Navidad.  I hope you and your family are safe and things are more tame in your neck of the woods!  I was thinking about you and your welfare after reading about all the happenings with Mormon colonies down in Mexico, that you live among. 

As you well know, our understanding of "salvation" is very different from yours.  We are basically universalists in terms of salvation.  It is not black and white saved (heaven), not saved (hell) for us.  But yes, you are correct that we believe that baptism is required for exaltation (to become Gods - very different from your version of salvation).  Two VERY different things.  From what I understand, the general Christian view of "salvation" is equivalent to the Latter-day Saint view of the Terrestrial Kingdom - not married, with Christ, not God's, and saved to glory as angels.  So, one really shouldn't feel offended or concerned that we are taking something from them, but instead we are offering something more than they ever imagined.

In regards to the bold part above.  I disagree completely.  The church acknowledges the spiritual validity of the sacred unity of marriage between a man and wife, and does not take that away from you in the least.  In the proclamation to the world on the family, it states, "marriage is ordained of God...".  It does not specify temple marriage.  Again, we are offering something more enduring than what your faith even teaches - eternal companionship and marriage.  Not "'till death do you part".  So, again, we are not taking anything from you, but offering something more...

Pogi: Thanks for the kind words. I thought I wrote you back yesterday, but I may have failed to do so correctly. This has been a challenging time for all the colonies here, both those that are still identified as LDS and those that are not. The relationships between the colonies is very complex and go back many years. A very well respected former temple, mission, and stake president dedicated the grave at one of the funerals a couple of weeks ago. Knowing that is an non-saving ordinance of the LDS church I was pleased that he reached out and completed that ordinance for folks that are not LDS. There are 13 different churches within a seven mile radius of Colonia LeBaron. They include evangelical, pentecostal, Jehovah Witnesses, Catholic and three mormon congregations who loosely affiliate around the teachings of Joel LeBaron. It is very complicated. The LeBaron family lived in Colonia Juarez for twenty years - a majority of the LeBaron children graduated from the Juarez Stake Academy. On the other hand Rulon Allred, a president and prophet of the United Apostolic Brethren was born in Colonia Dublan. His grandfather was the LDS Branch President in Colonia Guadalupe. Of course there are Johnsons, Langfords, and Millers everywhere. Some are of the LDS faith, some are affiliated with the fundamentalist faiths, and some are of no faith at all at this particular time. Sorry, again I digress. I have been to all the colonies, know folks in all of them and have tried to faithfully explain things to folks who are writing about recent events. 

Thanks for all your great clarifications for me. Of course I like the fact that you indicate the "church acknowledges the spiritual validity of the sacred unity of marriage between a man and a wife." That is so important to me. Our marriage was a spiritual event in its origination and has continued to be that in its many years of being together. I must add that attendance in the ward has increased the spiritual sensitivity of our marriage. We honor and appreciate that. 

The only thing I might seek to clarify for you in return is that for many folks like me future exaltation is not black and white (saved and unsaved) either. I believe, as do many evangelicals in a great wideness in God's mercy. I also believe it is clear from the New Testament that it is our faith that saves us. That certainly means different things for different folks. I believe that Christ will deal with all of that. Having said all of that, I have a very difficult time envisioning eternal life in heaven outside of the practice of the presence of Christ our Lord and Savior and Heavenly Father. I enjoy the discussion of these things with folks in our ward.  Some assure us we will be in the telestial, some the terrestial, and some the first two levels of the celestial kingdom. Of course, some are not sure and are confused by us - not in the sense of debate, but of what they see in our day to day life. We don't seem to fit the mold of their stereotypes of non-LDS Christians. For that we are grateful. I also would be unfair if I didn't also acknowledge that to some we are an offense because we represent a presence that the church does not seem to say much about, the "faithful non-member" of a LDS ward. We are not investigators, instigators, or alligators. We have been invited to speak to a group next August in SLC about what it is like to be a "faithful non-member of an LDS ward." That should be fun. I suggested they should also include some members of our ward to share what it is like to have such as us in their ward - the joys and the trials of the same. That would be insightful too. Thanks for your kindness.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Pogi: Thanks for the kind words. I thought I wrote you back yesterday, but I may have failed to do so correctly. This has been a challenging time for all the colonies here, both those that are still identified as LDS and those that are not. The relationships between the colonies is very complex and go back many years. A very well respected former temple, mission, and stake president dedicated the grave at one of the funerals a couple of weeks ago. Knowing that is an non-saving ordinance of the LDS church I was pleased that he reached out and completed that ordinance for folks that are not LDS. There are 13 different churches within a seven mile radius of Colonia LeBaron. They include evangelical, pentecostal, Jehovah Witnesses, Catholic and three mormon congregations who loosely affiliate around the teachings of Joel LeBaron. It is very complicated. The LeBaron family lived in Colonia Juarez for twenty years - a majority of the LeBaron children graduated from the Juarez Stake Academy. On the other hand Rulon Allred, a president and prophet of the United Apostolic Brethren was born in Colonia Dublan. His grandfather was the LDS Branch President in Colonia Guadalupe. Of course there are Johnsons, Langfords, and Millers everywhere. Some are of the LDS faith, some are affiliated with the fundamentalist faiths, and some are of no faith at all at this particular time. Sorry, again I digress. I have been to all the colonies, know folks in all of them and have tried to faithfully explain things to folks who are writing about recent events. 

Thanks for all your great clarifications for me. Of course I like the fact that you indicate the "church acknowledges the spiritual validity of the sacred unity of marriage between a man and a wife." That is so important to me. Our marriage was a spiritual event in its origination and has continued to be that in its many years of being together. I must add that attendance in the ward has increased the spiritual sensitivity of our marriage. We honor and appreciate that. 

The only thing I might seek to clarify for you in return is that for many folks like me future exaltation is not black and white (saved and unsaved) either. I believe, as do many evangelicals in a great wideness in God's mercy. I also believe it is clear from the New Testament that it is our faith that saves us. That certainly means different things for different folks. I believe that Christ will deal with all of that. Having said all of that, I have a very difficult time envisioning eternal life in heaven outside of the practice of the presence of Christ our Lord and Savior and Heavenly Father. I enjoy the discussion of these things with folks in our ward.  Some assure us we will be in the telestial, some the terrestial, and some the first two levels of the celestial kingdom. Of course, some are not sure and are confused by us - not in the sense of debate, but of what they see in our day to day life. We don't seem to fit the mold of their stereotypes of non-LDS Christians. For that we are grateful. I also would be unfair if I didn't also acknowledge that to some we are an offense because we represent a presence that the church does not seem to say much about, the "faithful non-member" of a LDS ward. We are not investigators, instigators, or alligators. We have been invited to speak to a group next August in SLC about what it is like to be a "faithful non-member of an LDS ward." That should be fun. I suggested they should also include some members of our ward to share what it is like to have such as us in their ward - the joys and the trials of the same. That would be insightful too. Thanks for your kindness.

Hmm.  I'm wondering why you haven't gone from being a "faithful non-member of an LDS ward" to a "faithful member of an LDS ward"???  And what do you mean by "faithful" non-member?  Faithful in what way?  Why haven't you received all of the ordinances yet?

[theplains]

On 12/5/2019 at 2:53 PM, pogi said:

From what I understand, the general Christian view of "salvation" is equivalent to the Latter-day Saint view of the Terrestrial Kingdom - not married, with Christ, not God's, and saved to glory as angels.

In LDS theology, is the Kingdom of God = the highest division of the Celestial Kingdom?

If yes, do you have a reference.

Thanks,
Jim

[pogi]

5 minutes ago, theplains said:

In LDS theology, is the Kingdom of God = the highest division of the Celestial Kingdom?

If yes, do you have a reference.

Thanks,
Jim

In LDS theology, the Kingdom of God is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (an ecclesiastical kingdom).  Not to be confused with the Kingdom of Heaven = Celestial Kingdom.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/kingdom-of-god-or-kingdom-of-heaven?lang=eng

[Ahab]

29 minutes ago, theplains said:

In LDS theology, is the Kingdom of God = the highest division of the Celestial Kingdom?

If yes, do you have a reference.

Thanks,
Jim

The kingdom of God is everywhere God's disciples are and at whatever level of intelligence his disciples have.  Some of his disciples have a telestial degree of intelligence, some have a terrestrial degree, and others have a celestial degree of intelligence/glory.

Check out D&C section 88.

[mfbukowski]

On 12/5/2019 at 10:52 AM, Navidad said:

Good Morning from sunny, windy, and chilly Chihuahua. I am putting my foot back in this forum after a seven-month absence in the hope that I can find some clarity on a few things. I seek clarity in understanding LDS doctrine. Certainly, that is appropriate for this board. I know that on this board there are academics, former and perhaps present bishops, stake presidents, etc. I seek to understand, and I hope you will help me. I have no other agenda. Please believe me in that.

We all have different aspects of our lives and ourselves that help define who we are – our identity as a person. They are vitally important to us as we live day-to-day. It is in that spirit that I seek to understand. As one who is into my third year of attending a ward of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a non-LDS Christian, I often seek to dig deeply into LDS beliefs and doctrine. I seek, not to debate or argue, but to understand my deeply personal reaction to some things, and then to correlate that to the 190 years of tension between LDS and non-LDS Christians. It is, however, mostly personal for me. I hope you can understand that as I seek clarification on three issues:

First, I have a very strong sense of self as a Christian, one who’s salvation is settled and whose exaltation (sanctification, as I term it) is incomplete, ongoing, and will continue way beyond the veil. I believe that LDS doctrine teaches that baptism is a salvific ordinance and can only be performed by one with proper authority, that of an LDS priesthood holder. Since I was baptized by immersion at 7 years of age by a Mennonite/Baptist/Brethren minister my baptism, essential for salvation is of no effect. In other words, I have not experienced salvation and confirmation, essential and initial way-points necessary to be on the road to exaltation. So, my sense of self as one who has experienced salvation and is still experiencing sanctification (exaltation) is in error. This first very important sense of self is false. The answer to “is a non-LDS Christian a Christian in the salvific sense” is no. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has within it the only legitimate means of salvation, of which proper baptism is the initial and an essential way-point in this and any future dispensation. Correct?

Second, I have a strong sense of self as a member of the family of God. I grew up singing in church “I’m so glad I’m a part of the family of God, I’ve been washed in the fountain, cleansed by His blood. Joint heirs with Jesus as I travel this sod, for I’m part of the family, the family of God.” This family is far more important to me than my biological family. In this sense, I correlate the Family of God on earth (the Christian family – a big tree with many branches) with the Kingdom of God on earth. Three weeks ago, in sacrament service a returning temple president spoke. He eloquently explained how only the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are the Kingdom of God on earth in this dispensation. So, my second sense of self went down the tubes that morning, that of being a member of the greater “family of God”- “the Kingdom of God” on this earth at this time. I am outside that family right now and will remain so until in this life or the next I accept the ordinances of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Without baptism by the proper authority, no salvation – without the means of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, no membership in the Kingdom of God on earth at this or any future time.

Third, I have a strong sense of self as a husband. This is very important to my sense of self. In 2020, my wife and I will experience our 50^th anniversary. I just began reading one of Brian Hales’ books on polygamy. I am very much involved in trying to understand the non-LDS colonies here in Mexico and in contributing to reporter’s and other’s understanding of the relationships of the recently impacted folks to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is indeed a complex relationship. There are many familial connections and a leading LDS figure here in Chihuahua dedicated the grave at one of the funeral services for one of those killed. I digress, sorry. On the first page of the preface of his book, Dr. Hales states “"I reasoned that without proper authority there could be no legitimate marriage; and without legitimate marriage, there could be no genuine plural marriage." That sentence really struck me, perhaps not in the way it was intended. It seems to me he is saying that, like baptism, marriage absent proper authority (code words for being administered by one with a certain level of the priesthood) is illegitimate. No proper authority – no legitimate marriage – henceforth all marriages outside of proper authority are illegitimate. My marriage to my wife is illegitimate in the eyes of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He didn’t appear to be speaking just to the sealing aspect of a temple marriage and future exaltation– but at the very core of non-LDS marriage’s legitimacy. Certainly, the Church cannot declare null and void the civil aspect of my marriage, but it seems to take away the spiritual validity (legitimacy) of it which is of course much more important to me.  

Unless I am re-baptized in this dispensation or the next, my salvation has no entrance door; without membership in the Church of Jesus Christ I am not a member of the Kingdom of God in this dispensation on this earth, and with marriage outside of “proper authority” I am living in an illegitimate marital relationship. Therefore, according to LDS doctrinal positions, all three of my strongest senses of self are self-deceiving, null and void? Is that correct? If not, what have I misstated or misunderstood? What is left of me?  

Thanks for your patience in reading this. Those of you who remember my posts know I can be wordy. I am simply trying to accurately and without ill will describe something that is so very important to me. If I am misstating the real live, bottom line, no kidding position of the Church, please let me know what I have misunderstood and misstated. I won't argue with you. I am here to listen. Thanks so much.

Howdy

I am very concerned about the confusion in terminology expressed here, and would love to try and set the record straight!

I sent you a PM.

[mfbukowski]

On 12/5/2019 at 10:52 AM, Navidad said:

I hope you can understand that as I seek clarification on three issues:

First, I have a very strong sense of self as a Christian, one who’s salvation is settled and whose exaltation (sanctification, as I term it) is incomplete, ongoing, and will continue way beyond the veil. I believe that LDS doctrine teaches that baptism is a salvific ordinance and can only be performed by one with proper authority, that of an LDS priesthood holder. Since I was baptized by immersion at 7 years of age by a Mennonite/Baptist/Brethren minister my baptism, essential for salvation is of no effect. In other words, I have not experienced salvation and confirmation, essential and initial way-points necessary to be on the road to exaltation. So, my sense of self as one who has experienced salvation and is still experiencing sanctification (exaltation) is in error. This first very important sense of self is false. The answer to “is a non-LDS Christian a Christian in the salvific sense” is no. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has within it the only legitimate means of salvation, of which proper baptism is the initial and an essential way-point in this and any future dispensation. Correct?

Not really, A little complicated.  The belief is that you WILL get everything God has promised you!  Heaven and praising God will be yours, resurrection and eternal bliss, according to our beliefs, but not the MORE that you COULD get.   God does not lie.  You will get what you earnestly believe you will get in the Terrestrial kingdom, most likely.

I pray we can communicate on this so you will understand- I know you have struggled with these questions and I think that the problem is that no one has every explained it to you in plain English because of our beliefs which readily get ridiculed by other Christians, AND because we have sacred temple rites about which we cannot speak.

Let me explain something to you- and that is the difference between being "saved" and "exalted" which are unfortunately used interchangeably and cause all the confusion.   I would like to know what "salvation" means to you.  I suspect what it means is that through Jesus Christ and belief in Him, we will go to heaven to praise God forever, and be resurrected.  For those who do not believe, they will go to eternal punishment.

Unfortunately we sometimes mean that by those words and sometimes not.

Let me call that salvation 1, or s1.

Now let's discuss exaltation.  That's quite different.

The most important difference between us and traditional Christianity is that we believe that through exaltation we can become Gods.  LIKE God in kind, yet as a parent is always presumably older and wiser than children, He will always be "above" us- yet - using earth life as an analogy- we will be LIKE him in the way that Grandpa is like a little baby.  We will be the same kind of being he is, and we will grow through eons to be as he is "now" though of course by that "time" he will be still be far far ahead of us, and we will never nor can we- "catch up".  He is eternally our God, and we will be Gods to our children who we create as Father has created us.  As He does now, we will be able to create worlds without end including universes and things we cannot even imagine now.

This exaltation is obviously a step "above" what most Christians imagine as "heaven".

And how is it possible?  Through our sacred temple rites.  WE BELIEVE we are the ONLY Christian group who hold the priesthood authority to teach what people must know in order to start the road toward becoming Gods.'

THAT is why we feel we have the "one true church"- that is actually a misnomer.  What we have is the only church who has the authority to perform the ordinances necessary to achieve this

These were lost to the rest of Christianity in the "apostasy" that started even in the time of Paul, as we read about in his Epistles- he and others already refer to the falling away of members of the church from true doctrine.

The door is open to all to join us.

So let's call salvation 2 - s2 meaning "Exaltation" and the PATH to exaltation.

So hopefully you see the difference now between s1- the "salvation " of Protestants, and s2- Exaltation.

Baptism.   This is the DOOR to the path leading to EXALTATION, not only s1 salvation.  It is the door to the CHURCH which has authority for s2- exaltation-  FROM that church.

That's why you need to get LDS baptism to get to Exaltation.  It is the opening of the door to the path that leads to exaltation- to becoming Gods.  All other paths do not have that authority.   I am being blunt but that is our belief.

BUT REMEMBER!!!!   We believe we have an eternity to join the PATH! including after we die!  If we have not heard or understand fully the PATH that leads not only to s1 but also s2- we WILLL be able to see it on the other side!

We are taught that EVERY knee shall bow and EVERY tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ.   Those people will receive what they expect- s1- and live in heaven praising God forever!   EVERYONE will get that far- except a few called "sons of perdition"- VERY few- who will be in outer darkness

Quote

 

Second, I have a strong sense of self as a member of the family of God. I grew up singing in church “I’m so glad I’m a part of the family of God, I’ve been washed in the fountain, cleansed by His blood. Joint heirs with Jesus as I travel this sod, for I’m part of the family, the family of God.” This family is far more important to me than my biological family. In this sense, I correlate the Family of God on earth (the Christian family – a big tree with many branches) with the Kingdom of God on earth. Three weeks ago, in sacrament service a returning temple president spoke. He eloquently explained how only the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are the Kingdom of God on earth in this dispensation. So, my second sense of self went down the tubes that morning, that of being a member of the greater “family of God”- “the Kingdom of God” on this earth at this time. I am outside that family right now and will remain so until in this life or the next I accept the ordinances of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Without baptism by the proper authority, no salvation – without the means of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, no membership in the Kingdom of God on earth at this or any future time.

 

I personally believe that all who believe in Christ as the savior and do his work are part of the "body of Christ" in that we are his hands and mouth here on earth, we are spreading the gospel of love and individual salvation.  "Kingdom of God" I tend to see more as the civil theocracy that is believed will exist after the Second Coming.

If prophets are fallible and make mistakes, so do temple presidents.   I have known 4 temple presidents in my life, two I have been blessed to have as personal friends, having long talks with them personally, visiting their homes socially, etc.  One of my wife's uncles was a General Authority, and I have known several stake presidents very well.

I have never personally known better men in my life, but none of these individuals were perfect or infallible.  They are humans struggling to be good and create lives of service as we all are, and sometimes definitely make mistakes as often as anyone else.  The difference is their devotion to the path they have chosen.

And YES as I hope you understand from above, without baptism by the proper authority there IS salvation- and everything you understand as "salvation" which I call s1- the Protestant idea of salvation.  The kingdom of God on earth?  I don't really know what that is or what our doctrine is on that, but why would you care what WE think the kingdom of God is?

I don't believe in what YOU believe the kingdom of God is- I think- maybe I do- because you have not defined it, but I am not worried about what OTHERS believe- I have enough trouble figuring out what I believe, and I DO have those beliefs dragged through the mud on a regular basis.  So frankly I find it hard to understand why you would be offended by others thinking you are wrong.     I am a libertarian in a socialist world and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ among atheists, and every time I turn on the TV I am ridiculed.  You have to just let it run off your back!  

Quote

Third, I have a strong sense of self as a husband. This is very important to my sense of self. In 2020, my wife and I will experience our 50^th anniversary. I just began reading one of Brian Hales’ books on polygamy. I am very much involved in trying to understand the non-LDS colonies here in Mexico and in contributing to reporter’s and other’s understanding of the relationships of the recently impacted folks to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is indeed a complex relationship. There are many familial connections and a leading LDS figure here in Chihuahua dedicated the grave at one of the funeral services for one of those killed. I digress, sorry. On the first page of the preface of his book, Dr. Hales states “"I reasoned that without proper authority there could be no legitimate marriage; and without legitimate marriage, there could be no genuine plural marriage." That sentence really struck me, perhaps not in the way it was intended. It seems to me he is saying that, like baptism, marriage absent proper authority (code words for being administered by one with a certain level of the priesthood) is illegitimate. No proper authority – no legitimate marriage – henceforth all marriages outside of proper authority are illegitimate. My marriage to my wife is illegitimate in the eyes of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He didn’t appear to be speaking just to the sealing aspect of a temple marriage and future exaltation– but at the very core of non-LDS marriage’s legitimacy.   

Congrats on you upcoming 50th- we are mere amateurs at 40 years now. 

I have met Brother Hales on a few occasions and found him to be a VERY nice guy, and I am sure that somehow that is a misinterpretation of what he was saying.  But I could be wrong.

But again remember he is not infallible, and has no particular calling to "get it right".  

But let's look at facts.  Of course the church finds marriages NOT made in the temple as "legitimate" marriages!  How could it not?  The very definition of the law of chastity found in our temple recommend interview defines fornication or adultery as "sexual relations with someone to whom one is NOT LEGALLY OR LAWFULLY WED. 

We do NOT take away the spiritual significance of your marriage- it defines serious sin from Godly love- the kind you have with your sweetheart.

In other words- if a marriage is legal and lawful, the church sees that as completely "legitimate".

But now back to that s1 and s2  distinction- will a marriage outside of a temple SEAL you FOREVER?  With the ability to become Gods and Goddesses?   No, according to us it does not.

Again it is the difference between Protestant "salvation" and LDS "Exaltation" which is the kind of eternal life God has.  You have PROMISED that you marriage will last "until death do you part" and that is EXACTLY what God will give you!!  Unless of course you promise God that you solemnly want your marriage to be eternal and get married- SEALED in an LDS temple- and you will have an eternity to MAKE THAT DECISION- even after you have passed away!

Suppose you stay as you are, and you and your sweetheart will eventually pass away, as we all do.  Will you still be married having promised that you take those vows ONLY "until death do you part"?   I will let you answer that question yourself.  WHERE in this world can you find a church that can "seal" you for TIME & ETERNITY?

You know the answer!!    YOU have already covenented for it to end at death! 

Quote

 He didn’t appear to be speaking just to the sealing aspect of a temple marriage and future exaltation– but at the very core of non-LDS marriage’s legitimacy.   

Not at all.  You have yourself made a covenant to end your marriage at death.   I am sorry but is that NOT true??

Quote

Unless I am re-baptized in this dispensation or the next, my salvation has no entrance door; without membership in the Church of Jesus Christ I am not a member of the Kingdom of God in this dispensation on this earth, and with marriage outside of “proper authority” I am living in an illegitimate marital relationship. Therefore, according to LDS doctrinal positions, all three of my strongest senses of self are self-deceiving, null and void? Is that correct? If not, what have I misstated or misunderstood? What is left of me?  

No, it is not correct, and I hope at this point I have given you at least a glimmer of what you have misstated and misunderstood.   Probably NEVER in your life have you thought that YOU could be God- for the children you create spiritually.  Depending on definitions- and those you choose- you ARE part of the Kingdom of God- if we are talking about the civil kingdom after the second coming.   

You are NOT living in any way in an "illegitimate" marriage- your marriage is the difference between fornication and adultery a loving God ordained state of life which God designed for humanity to have and raise his children in this life- LEGITIMATELY and SPIRITUALLY

But you cannot BE SEALED for eternity anywhere on earth except on the covenant path from Baptism to sealing found in our church.   We are the ONLY ones who believe this - and so to believe what we believe, you must believe what we believe!! 

Quote

Thanks for your patience in reading this. Those of you who remember my posts know I can be wordy. I am simply trying to accurately and without ill will describe something that is so very important to me. If I am misstating the real live, bottom line, no kidding position of the Church, please let me know what I have misunderstood and misstated. I won't argue with you. I am here to listen. Thanks so much.

I pray I have helped at least a little.

Edited December 7, 2019 by mfbukowski

[RevTestament]

On 12/5/2019 at 11:52 AM, Navidad said:

Good Morning from sunny, windy, and chilly Chihuahua. I am putting my foot back in this forum after a seven-month absence in the hope that I can find some clarity on a few things. I seek clarity in understanding LDS doctrine. Certainly, that is appropriate for this board. I know that on this board there are academics, former and perhaps present bishops, stake presidents, etc. I seek to understand, and I hope you will help me. I have no other agenda. Please believe me in that.

We all have different aspects of our lives and ourselves that help define who we are – our identity as a person. They are vitally important to us as we live day-to-day. It is in that spirit that I seek to understand. As one who is into my third year of attending a ward of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a non-LDS Christian, I often seek to dig deeply into LDS beliefs and doctrine. I seek, not to debate or argue, but to understand my deeply personal reaction to some things, and then to correlate that to the 190 years of tension between LDS and non-LDS Christians. It is, however, mostly personal for me. I hope you can understand that as I seek clarification on three issues:

First, I have a very strong sense of self as a Christian, one who’s salvation is settled and whose exaltation (sanctification, as I term it) is incomplete, ongoing, and will continue way beyond the veil. I believe that LDS doctrine teaches that baptism is a salvific ordinance and can only be performed by one with proper authority, that of an LDS priesthood holder. Since I was baptized by immersion at 7 years of age by a Mennonite/Baptist/Brethren minister my baptism, essential for salvation is of no effect. In other words, I have not experienced salvation and confirmation, essential and initial way-points necessary to be on the road to exaltation. So, my sense of self as one who has experienced salvation and is still experiencing sanctification (exaltation) is in error. This first very important sense of self is false. The answer to “is a non-LDS Christian a Christian in the salvific sense” is no. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has within it the only legitimate means of salvation, of which proper baptism is the initial and an essential way-point in this and any future dispensation. Correct?

Welcome back to the forum Navidad! It's great to hear from you. Let me take this opportunity to first wish you and you wife congratulations on reaching your 50th year. Wow! Incidentally, 2020 represents our 25th! I have told you that I am not always "orthodox." I tend to follow scripture more than other things, and I don't believe there is anything in our scripture which specifically states one must be baptized to be "saved." What I am about to say is my current thoughts on the topic which I offer for consideration and prayer - not in any way official doctrine. The reason I put saved in quotations is because there is potentially two ways I think people can be saved. The first is from spirit prison or probably best described in English as Hell. Unfortunately, I believe the English translations have confused our third estate by using the word Hell. You are probably aware that the Greek says Hades. The equivalent Hebrew is Sheol. These words essentially describe the afterlife or our third estate. We believe this time is divided into two aspects of our third estate. One is spirit prison or Hell, and the other is paradise. Both can be described as Sheol or Hades. If we go to paradise, I consider that to be saved from "Hell." You may recall that Yeshua told the rebel up on the cross with Him that day he would be in paradise - yet, surely he was not baptized. I believe baptism is an essential ordinance to follow Yeshua, but the question is what does that mean? Is it essential to be "saved" to paradise, or is it essential to be resurrected in the first resurrection? I currently believe only the latter. 

I know this is a sensitive topic for you, so let me address it this way. Do you recall the parable of the 10 virgins? They all thought they were going to the wedding feast with the groom. Everyone who calls themselves Christian thinks they are going to the wedding feast, but that is not what Yeshua said. He said some ran out of oil. And when did the time come? When the call went forth that the bride groom cometh... That call has gone out. It is still soft, but is getting louder. Some know that the hour is nigh, and have gotten oil for their lamps. It is not us who exclude those without oil Navidad. We would like everyone to have oil.

There is a scripture in our D&C which says that His Church is those who repent and follow Him. 

10:67 Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and ^acometh unto me, the same is my ^bchurch.

However, Mosiah 26:22 says

22 For behold, ^athis is my ^bchurch; whosoever is ^cbaptized shall be baptized unto repentance. And whomsoever ye receive shall ^dbelieve in my name; and him will I freely ^eforgive.

So, if you are baptized and are a follower it seems He will save you from spirit prison, but it is not clear that you must be baptized.

The second salvation I believe occurs upon resurrection and final judgment, when I believe most all those who went to spirit prison will repent, and be saved. Those who don't will become sons of perdition, and will not be saved to a heavenly kingdom.  Hopefully, this does not further muddy the waters for you.  

Quote

Second, I have a strong sense of self as a member of the family of God. I grew up singing in church “I’m so glad I’m a part of the family of God, I’ve been washed in the fountain, cleansed by His blood. Joint heirs with Jesus as I travel this sod, for I’m part of the family, the family of God.” This family is far more important to me than my biological family. In this sense, I correlate the Family of God on earth (the Christian family – a big tree with many branches) with the Kingdom of God on earth. Three weeks ago, in sacrament service a returning temple president spoke. He eloquently explained how only the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are the Kingdom of God on earth in this dispensation. So, my second sense of self went down the tubes that morning, that of being a member of the greater “family of God”- “the Kingdom of God” on this earth at this time. I am outside that family right now and will remain so until in this life or the next I accept the ordinances of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Without baptism by the proper authority, no salvation – without the means of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, no membership in the Kingdom of God on earth at this or any future time.

Well, not quite true. Again, we believe that those in the afterlife can repent, and follow Him. There will be many, many people who do so, and will join us in the kingdom of God at a future time.  Other Christians are so used to thinking of salvation as limited to this life (our second estate) that they tend to forget our belief in salvation of the dead. Let me point you to revelation. Do you remember the scripture about an angel which calls many people out of the great and abominable Church? If we don't do our job to call people out of untrue doctrine and creeds, we aren't doing our job. It is a labor of love. We love our fellow Christians, and we simply want them to be open to more truth and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Should we just let other Christians go down with the false prophet who misled the whole world?

Quote

Third, I have a strong sense of self as a husband. This is very important to my sense of self. In 2020, my wife and I will experience our 50^th anniversary. I just began reading one of Brian Hales’ books on polygamy. I am very much involved in trying to understand the non-LDS colonies here in Mexico and in contributing to reporter’s and other’s understanding of the relationships of the recently impacted folks to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is indeed a complex relationship. There are many familial connections and a leading LDS figure here in Chihuahua dedicated the grave at one of the funeral services for one of those killed. I digress, sorry. On the first page of the preface of his book, Dr. Hales states “"I reasoned that without proper authority there could be no legitimate marriage; and without legitimate marriage, there could be no genuine plural marriage." That sentence really struck me, perhaps not in the way it was intended. It seems to me he is saying that, like baptism, marriage absent proper authority (code words for being administered by one with a certain level of the priesthood) is illegitimate. No proper authority – no legitimate marriage – henceforth all marriages outside of proper authority are illegitimate. My marriage to my wife is illegitimate in the eyes of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He didn’t appear to be speaking just to the sealing aspect of a temple marriage and future exaltation– but at the very core of non-LDS marriage’s legitimacy. Certainly, the Church cannot declare null and void the civil aspect of my marriage, but it seems to take away the spiritual validity (legitimacy) of it which is of course much more important to me.  

Unless I am re-baptized in this dispensation or the next, my salvation has no entrance door; without membership in the Church of Jesus Christ I am not a member of the Kingdom of God in this dispensation on this earth, and with marriage outside of “proper authority” I am living in an illegitimate marital relationship. Therefore, according to LDS doctrinal positions, all three of my strongest senses of self are self-deceiving, null and void? Is that correct? If not, what have I misstated or misunderstood? What is left of me?  

Thanks for your patience in reading this. Those of you who remember my posts know I can be wordy. I am simply trying to accurately and without ill will describe something that is so very important to me. If I am misstating the real live, bottom line, no kidding position of the Church, please let me know what I have misunderstood and misstated. I won't argue with you. I am here to listen. Thanks so much.

I think others have addressed this question adequately. Our scriptures recognize civil marriage. We do not believe those in civil marriage are living in adultery. It is simply a temporary marriage - until death do you part. Being sealed in marriage allows us to enter a more permanent covenant. It is part of the everlasting covenant God said He would make with the Gentiles in Isaiah - you may recall He did not send Yeshua to the Gentiles. 

 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You will get what you earnestly believe you will get in the Terrestrial kingdom, most likely.

Except other Christians believe they will be living and be one with God, which means God the Father as well as Christ and the Holy Spirit.  This seems to me to be fundamentally different to what Saints teach of the Terrestrial and especially significant since in my experience, it is being with God fully (thus requires the presence of the Father) that is most important to them.  

Telling them they will have everything they want/believe they will get in heaven except the most important thing is like telling an individual longing to be a parent in the ideal family (as taught in the gospel imo and in our culture in the past) they will get everything they believe they will get in their family except for their spouse.

Edited December 7, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

11 hours ago, pogi said:

In LDS theology, the Kingdom of God is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (an ecclesiastical kingdom).  Not to be confused with the Kingdom of Heaven = Celestial Kingdom.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/kingdom-of-god-or-kingdom-of-heaven?lang=eng

Which is different from how Saints see the Family of God, so equating those two will lead to confusion over what we are teaching imo.

Quote

I correlate the Family of God on earth (the Christian family – a big tree with many branches) with the Kingdom of God on earth.

This is how we generally talk about the Family of God:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2017/04/gathering-the-family-of-god?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/family?lang=eng

Quote

As spirit sons and daughters of Heavenly Parents, we are all members of the family of God

There is however a distinction made when speaking of the adopted sons and daughters of Christ.  If that is what Navidad means by "the Family of God", then there is likely still a problem for him if he feels driven to reconcile his beliefs with ours to feel at home or welcomed in our community.  Personally I think for most Saints, our belief that all are of the Family of God the Father dominates how we view others.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/adoption?lang=eng&country=ru&letter=A

Quote

There are two types of adoption spoken of in the scriptures. A person who is of non-Israelite lineage becomes a member of the house of Israel through faith in Jesus Christ when it is accompanied by baptism in water and the reception of the Holy Ghost. In addition, all candidates for the fulness of salvation are accounted as sons and daughters of Jesus Christ, being His children by obedience to the gospel (Mosiah 5:7–8). Although the word adoption is not actually used by John the Baptist, he taught the concept as recorded in Matt. 3:9 and Luke 3:8 (compare JST Matt. 3:36 [Appendix]; JST Luke 3:8 [Luke 3:8 note d]). See also Rom. 8:15–17; Gal. 4:5–7; Eph. 1:5; Abr. 2:10.

 

Edited December 7, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

On 12/5/2019 at 11:52 AM, Navidad said:

I am simply trying to accurately and without ill will describe something that is so very important to me.

Why is it so important to you that we believe certain things if you believe the Truth is different? (A question, not a challenge)

If you believe your baptism and Christianity means you are saved  and are part of the Kingdom of God and a member of God's Family, how and why does it affect you that we might believe differently?

Edited December 7, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Unfortunately, I believe the English translations have confused our third estate by using the word Hell

An aside, off topic, just curious, not arguing.....

Did you define the next stage of life as the "third estate" on your own or did you get the idea from some one else?

Me just as an FYI to explain why I am curious, no need to discuss as you explained what you meant already.....I see the next stage of life (post death) as second estate, part 2 with post resurrection as third estate because I see estates connected to judgments (first estate ended with the judgment of how we would follow God in the next stage, to follow God by accepting Plan of Salvation or to reject him; second estate ends with judgment of how we will follow God after resurrection).  I don't believe we make a choice immediately following death as we haven't learned enough yet to make informed, in full agency choices.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

We believe this time is divided into two aspects of our third estate. One is spirit prison or Hell, and the other is paradise.

We actually teach it as three parts:  paradise, spirit prison-school, and spirit prison-hell.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-41-the-postmortal-spirit-world?lang=eng

Quote

The Apostle Peter referred to the postmortal spirit world as a prison, which it is for some (see 1 Peter 3:18–20). In the spirit prison are the spirits of those who have not yet received the gospel of Jesus Christ. These spirits have agency and may be enticed by both good and evil. If they accept the gospel and the ordinances performed for them in the temples, they may leave the spirit prison and dwell in paradise.

Also in the spirit prison are those who rejected the gospel after it was preached to them either on earth or in the spirit prison. These spirits suffer in a condition known as hell. They have removed themselves from the mercy of Jesus Christ, who said, “Behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; but if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit” (D&C 19:16–18). After suffering for their sins, they will be allowed, through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, to inherit the lowest degree of glory, which is the telestial kingdom.

I would not be the least bit surprised though if we have it a bit muddled in terms of association/community and instead spirit prison-school and paradise were the same thing, those waiting for ordinances interacting with those who had them and teaching the principles they knew just as the righteous who had their ordinances done and accepted were.  This makes sense given the thief likely did not have all his ordinances completed.  It seems like baptism would be the only ordinance that might be needed for paradise, but there is no reason to assume the thief was baptized as far as I am aware.

I get the reasoning for mixing those who haven't received the Gospel yet with those who rejected it so there is influence from both righteous and wicked, but I don't see that as fully consistent with the use of paradise in the context of the thief.

D&C divides paradise and spirit prison in terms of righteous and wicked, not ordinances imo.

Quote

And I wondered at the words of Peter—wherein he said that the Son of God preached unto the spirits in prison, who sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah—and how it was possible for him to preach to those spirits and perform the necessary labor among them in so short a time.

29 And as I wondered, my eyes were opened, and my understanding quickened, and I perceived that the Lord went not in person among the wickedand the disobedient who had rejected the truth, to teach them;

30 But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and appointed messengers, clothed with power and authority, and commissionedthem to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead.

 

Edited December 7, 2019 by Calm

[Navidad]

On 12/6/2019 at 3:43 AM, The Nehor said:

As to what is left of you: a child of God, which is enough. 

Attaching your self worth and identity to your own self conception in general strikes me as a house built on sand. I find that God often tears down things that are so very important to me because they were or had the potential to become idols even if they were not overt sins.

Hi Nehor: Your last sentences have a lot of wisdom in them. Would you apply the same wisdom and counsel to a Saint whose identity and self concept is to a very large degree wrapped up in his or her membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? I don't know how to establish a sense of identity without focusing on my faith. Is that possible for a person of faith? The three specifics I have mentioned are my self worth and identity as a Christian, a member of the community of Christians, and as a husband. I like what you have said but no more know how to separate out self worth and identity from those three things than I believe most Saints would, within their own understanding of their Christianity, belonging to the LDS community of faith, and as a family member? On the other hand as people of faith we tend to set up idols, including the uniqueness and virtue of our own particular faith and how that informs us. I like your counsel; I am just not sure how to implement it or how a Saint should/can implement it.