Baptism, Marriage, and the Kingdom of God

[Calm]

14 hours ago, Navidad said:

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.

They shouldn't be assuring you of anything imo given your journey has a long way to go, just as theirs does and no one knows their ending yet.  Then there is the aspect of judgment being as much or more about your internal state and process as the external and no mortal is aware of another's internal state beyond how well and accurate a person may describe it to them.

And even if we believe teaching the Gospel occurs after death prior to resurrection, we don't really know how that works and what happens between the time the Gospel is accepted and ordinances are performed.

[Navidad]

13 hours ago, Ahab said:

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?

Hi Ahab: You ask good and fair questions. I will tackle the second first. What do I mean by a faithful non-member? Faithful in what way? As a bit of background, we live in a small community in isolated rural Mexico. We have attended a small historic LDS ward for into our third year now. We attend every meeting, fellowship opportunity, etc. and actively participate in most of them. In our area we do have the first small temple built by the church (ten minutes from our house). Obviously as non-members we don't participate in temple activities, as don't many folks in our ward (and perhaps in all wards). The first and most important way we are faithful is that, as regular attendees of the ward we have voluntarily placed ourselves under the authority of our local leaders at the bishopric and stake levels. We consider them our spiritual mentors, coaches, and leaders. We value their counsel, guidance, and direction. They are Godly and spiritual men. We have voluntarily sought to associate with the ward and therefore have an obligation to conform to its standards, practices, and polity. So we do our best to do so. How? Well, I speak at least twice a month somewhere in the United States or Mexico in English or Spanish on religious history and conflict, inclusive of the history of the LDS church and its associate groups. This year I have done so from Boston to San Diego, from Salt Lake City to El Paso and from Ciudad Juarez to southern Mexico. Every time I am asked to do something, go somewhere and speak I present the opportunity to the bishop. I ask for his permission, approval, advice, etc. in all my speaking work. If he said no, I would not go, especially when my going involves something LDS related which it often does. My work involves a lot of inter-faith work as well as LDS history. I have done a number of informal firesides speaking about various aspects of LDS and Mennonite history, especially that of the Mexican colonies of both groups. I speak (and have often given invocations) at meetings of the MHA. I have written in their journal. Next year I will be speaking at BYU and other LDS-affiliated conferences from Rochester to SLC. I strive to be faithful in all I say and do in that regard. There is never a month that I don't host groups of LDS folks at my home, take them to the mountains to see the old LDS colonies, answer their emails about the history of the area or their ancestors, or speak locally to the non-LDS community about our history which of course includes the Saints. When folks in the church history department are asked about the Mexican colonies they often refer folks to me. When historians/professors such as Patrick Mason are asked about the Mexican colonies, they have referred the questioners to me. I have spoken at MHA meetings on subjects such as the different exodus experiences of the folks from Mexico, activities of the apostles here in Mexico, etc. A few weeks ago Barbara Jones Brown, who many of you might know mentioned me as her Mennonite friend in the colonies in a podcast she did for the Tribune on the current situation here. 

Within our ward, I have substitute taught adult Sunday School, I have given sacrament talks, I sing solos and in the ward and stake choirs and in the annual LDS community Christmas concert. I have worked with our young men to teach them to read music. I have regularly testified in our testimony Sunday meeting and my wife and I beat four other LDS couples in this year's annual newlywed game! We participate in all social events. The bishop has asked us to assist in identifying community opportunities and needs in ministry under the direction of the couple who has that calling. We tried to tithe, but the bishop would not accept our tithes, so we tithe elsewhere. We do support specific projects, including fast offerings as well. We minister in funerals by preparing for, cleaning, and serving family meals. My wife faithfully attends and participates in the women's Bible studies and book studies. She is very active in all aspects of the Relief Society, helping with whatever projects they are involved in to serve the community. We have much poverty where we live. She has also been a substitute teacher in the adult Sunday school class. She has testified in testimony meetings and is a substitute teacher in the primary classes, and sometimes serves as the second adult in the room under the new Church policy. She volunteers as a reading resource specialist in the academy (in the elementary school). We both as faithfully as we can are present for our assigned Saturday to help clean the chapel. In our own way we have done all we can to minister to folks within the ward with special needs. We have a rich and full church experience in the ward. Certainly there are things we miss from our own Mennonite church experience, but there is no non-German speaking Mennonite church within four hours of our house. There are far more similarities than differences between LDS and Mennonite culture, social norms, and family emphasis. That is one reason we have been able to be so comfortable in the ward. There is not much there different or new to us. We work very hard to be an example of faithfulness and Christ's love to all in the ward including the children. I have gone down to the non-LDS colonies to minister to the folks negatively impacted by the recent murders in our area. I am sure you know of what I speak. I hope that all helps you understand how we consider ourselves and are considered by many in our ward as "faithful non-members."

Again, as I said earlier in a different post I would be remiss if I did not include that I know there is a percentage, however small of folks in the ward who range from unsure what to do with us to considering us an offense to the "gospel" since we have not joined the Church. The last few weeks we have had three couples return to the ward from three year absences serving as temple and mission presidents. It is interesting to watch them try and figure us out, how we came to have our own pew (a tradition consistent with Mennonitism!) and be so active, especially when they discover we are not members. They have come up to us and said, "Oh, so you are the Mennonites we have heard about?" Sometimes with a smile and on occasion with a bit of puzzlement, or with both. As others on this forum have pointed out, our experience is probably somewhat rare as perhaps other more urban, resource-rich wards would not be prone to allow us to serve as we do. This reply is too long as it is, so I will tackle your next question in a different message. I hope you can see that we are trying to be a faithful and positive influence in our ward as we would in any church of any denomination/group we might attend. We submit to the leadership authority of those whom God has placed over us. As I have said before, we are Christians first, evangelicals (in a strict definition of the word) second, and Mennonite third. That makes it a delight for us to associate as fully as we are allowed with other Christians. It also makes it more difficult when they put up doctrinal barriers to our full acceptance. That is indeed something we are not used to. It is our part of the adjustment and it is in that spirit that I started this thread.  Oh, and I also acknowledge the barriers that are often put up by fundamentalist Christians to full acceptance of Saints as Christians. I am opposed to that and am an outspoken critic of the same. For that I have suffered within my own faith community and family. 

 

Edited December 7, 2019 by Navidad
grammar

[Navidad]

On 12/6/2019 at 3:20 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

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!!  🎅

Greetings and thanks for the well wishes. I trust all is well with you. 

[Navidad]

On 12/5/2019 at 1:54 PM, rpn said:

 

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

Thanks for your reply. I struggle however with understanding that when you say something is achievable "only" with the proper ordinances and that those proper ordinances are found "only" in the ordinances of one church how that isn't exclusionary. Isn't "only" by its very nature a word that implies "exclusion" of all others' ordinances and beliefs? If I said to you that you can only achieve this or that by accepting Mennonite baptism and that some day you will have the opportunity to experience eternal life by becoming Mennonite in this world or the next, wouldn't you think that a bit exclusive of me? 

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

us to considering us an offense to the "gospel" since we have not joined the Church.

This is ridiculous.  If we can and indeed should fully welcome investigators, there should be no reason to not accept those who make fuller commitments even if they do not take all the steps towards membership.

[Navidad]

23 hours ago, CV75 said:

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

Thanks so much for this last statement. I have never heard a Saint say that before. That really resonates with me. Thanks very much.

[Navidad]

16 hours ago, Ahab said:

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?

Ok. Now I will attempt to answer your other questions. I haven't become a "faithful member" of an LDS ward for several reasons. I am quite happy, content and comfortable within a Mennonite expression of my faith. It meets the majority of my spiritual needs. I acknowledge that it is not for everyone. It, like Mormonism and Judaism is a culture as well as a location for the expression of faith. My wife and I have prayed and chatted at length about this. We are both in agreement that we see nothing in the LDS church that is unavailable to us within our current formal faith affiliation. I think that we are also impacted by how much our LDS friends struggle to measure up, to have assurance, to know what lies in their future. Saints criticize non-LDS Christians for practicing a salvation that is too easy. Perhaps I feel that the LDS church is too, well - too hard on people. I have never fellowshipped with such a stressed bunch of folks.

Also, as I said many times, and this is the most important thing - my primary sense of self is as a Christian - redeemed by the atonement of Christ, sealed by his blood and assured of an eternal life with him. That "blessed assurance" is not cheap grace. It is not easy believism as some critics claim. It is a calm surrender to the grace that Christ offers me. As Paul says in Ephesians it is a gift directly from Christ to me as an individual.

That redemption is not offered, in my belief, by or through any church, group, or denomination. It is an individual decision; a covenant made between Christ and me. Just as marriage is a covenant between my wife and me as individuals, so is my Christian faith a matter of a commitment between me and Christ. So, while my church affiliation is a means for me to learn, grow, worship, fellowship and be held accountable, it is nothing more than that. So I could become neither Catholic, Mormon, nor a member of any other church that claims for itself an exclusive right to control salvation or exaltation (sanctification) which are both matters of an individual relationship with Christ. The church is where I am fed, nourished and refreshed, as well as is the riverside, the forest, the quiet still place where I can get my thirst quenched. Attending, fellowshipping, and worshiping in an LDS ward is a means to being nourished; as is attendance at a Mennonite or Baptist church. They are all a bit different. I miss the preaching, the music, and the in-depth Bible study of my Mennonite church. I welcome and enjoy the fellowship, the way the LDS church stretches my mind, robs me of my preconceptions, and teaches me. I admire the Godly leadership of our local leaders in our ward just as I did that of the bishops and leaders of the Mennonite and Baptist churches we have attended. I see no difference in Godliness between the churches or the people therein. That is because people are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, not churches. The Holy Spirit is present in the LDS ward, as it is in the Mennonite church because the Holy Spirit indwells the Christians who attend there. We are as individuals the physical visible presence of God on earth as was the shekinah glory on the ark before God withdrew it in Ezekiel and as was Christ when He was here on earth.

So I struggle with seeing how I can join a church that claims something that I so fundamentally disagree with, that it has the sole authority, it has the only saving ordinances, it is the only true and living way. Jesus had the audacity in John 14 to declare himself “the way, the truth and the life.” He didn’t declare that on behalf of a church. It is all about a personal relationship with Christ. My baptism was a testimony of that relationship. The laying on me with hands and oil to ordain me to serve, was to bring people to a personal and individual saving knowledge of Christ, not to the Baptist, Mennonite, or LDS church or faith. When I see a faithful Mormon, I actually see a faithful Christian, not a target for proselytizing to a Mennonite way of life. I don't see movement between Christian churches as "conversion." It is simply a different affiliation for and at a different time. I know we fundamentally will disagree on this point. That is ok. I still love and respect what I can learn from many of you. I hope this helps.

Edited December 7, 2019 by Navidad
grammar

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

This is ridiculous.  If we can and indeed should fully welcome investigators, there should be no reason to not accept those who make fuller commitments even if they do not take all the steps towards membership.

All I can do is shout a hearty "amen" to that!

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Thanks so much for this last statement. I have never heard a Saint say that before. That really resonates with me. Thanks very much.

I cannot say why you haven't heard it before, but in my experience it is a basic principle among us and has been taught in General Conference (for example):

"...we respect those who honestly search for truth. It may break our hearts when their journey takes them away from the Church we love and the truth we have found, but we honor their right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience, just as we claim that privilege for ourselves." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng

Of course, I recommend you read the entire talk as even more might resonate with you!

[2BizE]

Thank you for pointing out the finer points of our religion.  We joyfully seek to exclude as many people from salvation as possible.

Not only is the correct priesthood required for your baptism, marriage, and eternal salvation required, it is exclusively found in the Mormon church (of all the 6000 religions on Earth).

But wait, there's more... you must also give 10% of your income to the multi-billion dollar Mormon church and abandon any use of Mexican cafe with Oaxacan chocolate or you cannot enter the temple where these exclusive blessings of post-mortal life salvation are bestowed.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

............................... when you say something is achievable "only" with the proper ordinances and that those proper ordinances are found "only" in the ordinances of one church how that isn't exclusionary. Isn't "only" by its very nature a word that implies "exclusion" of all others' ordinances and beliefs? If I said to you that you can only achieve this or that by accepting Mennonite baptism and that some day you will have the opportunity to experience eternal life by becoming Mennonite in this world or the next, wouldn't you think that a bit exclusive of me? 

In pluralistic American society, there are many exclusive claimants to being absolutely right.  And not just Mennonites and Mormons.  The Muslims and Catholics also take absolute positions.  As long as we are respectful of one another, that should pose no real problem.  We have a cafeteria selection available.  Surely you understand that.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

I don't see it that way.

And then we add in progression between kingdoms, and individual differences and etc and etc and who "really knows" how much our silly little squiggles on a page "represent" the wonders of God, or the blessings God decides to give an individual for service, the importance of which is known only to God?   We are pretty good at slicing and dicing this stuff on paper but quite honestly words cannot describe what God has in store for those who love Him.  Whoever it is I feel in deep meditation is who I want to simply want to fall into and become one with and I will be fine forever if He/She feels I deserve "only" that.

...Through a glass darkly, but then face to face.

Who was it who said that if we truly comprehended what was in store for us, we would commit suicide- thereby putting us in the telestial (lowest) kingdom of heaven?  If we cannot describe even that level of glory, I would not worry too much about slicing and dicing that which we have absolutely no real comprehension.

And so I sympathize with Navidad because the reality is we believe in universal salvation while at the same time demanding exclusivity to higher rewards we cannot even describe.  We ourselves use words like "salvation" for all of it and so muddy the waters ourselves.  These problems are totally our fault in our lack of willingness to say that we want to be Gods, because that connotes the worst possible hubris imaginable to most people.  And there it is, right in the Bible as a lost doctrine, hiding in plain sight!   The apostasy dumbed it all down and stripped away even the best and truest interpretation  of the Bible even while encouraging all to read it.   The pagan Greek doctrine of the evil of matter and the human body poisoned all of it, making it other-worldly and unattainable for we horrible creatures tainted forever by original sin.  And so our neighbors now have no comprehension of the true glories available to us.   And then we go and confuse the issue more by using the same words they do, because we are so desperate to be seen as sectarian "Christians" while insisting that we are NOT sectarians.   We want to be part of the club but we are not

No wonder we confuse people!!

So as a convert- which is it?  I have had the same kinds of questions- as a convert- that Navidad has.   People would commit suicide for the telestial kingdom - and then we slice and dice what "more" there is which we cannot even comprehend.

So yes I will continue to say to folks that whatever they comprehend as "heaven", it will be far better than what we can even comprehend, and my testimony of the endowment tells me that I am right that it is an even higher path for which more effort is required.  The more I comprehend about the endowment just continually raises me higher in my immersive meditation, so it is clear to me that there are an infinite number of steps on Jacob's ladder which disappear in the mist above me.   That's about all I know about that.  I have had enough of a taste to know that whatever it is, I will do anything to go there.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, 2BizE said:

Thank you for pointing out the finer points of our religion.  We joyfully seek to exclude as many people from salvation as possible.

Not only is the correct priesthood required for your baptism, marriage, and eternal salvation required, it is exclusively found in the Mormon church (of all the 6000 religions on Earth).

But wait, there's more... you must also give 10% of your income to the multi-billion dollar Mormon church and abandon any use of Mexican cafe with Oaxacan chocolate or you cannot enter the temple where these exclusive blessings of post-mortal life salvation are bestowed.

OK I can do without the coffee but no Oaxaca chocolate? Now that is just too much! 

[webbles]

45 minutes ago, Navidad said:

OK I can do without the coffee but no Oaxaca chocolate? Now that is just too much! 

I think he meant coffee with oaxaca chocolate.  Because I've never heard of a ban of just oaxaca chocolate by itself.

[mfbukowski]

On 12/6/2019 at 2:20 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

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!!  🎅

Two witnesses- I agree fully, in case that matters.  Poor Navidad on this site gets one opinion after another not knowing what is "official" doctrine- I think it helps if we sustain each other's statements about what the doctrine actually IS.  And yes, they WILL be proxy sealed after they pass away anyway. 

So as they are it is likely that they will be eligible to all blessings available to us- I only say "likely" because I am not their judge, but by what we know about doctrine ALL faithful folks will see the light after death and accept the gospel.  We have many statements by GA's to that effect, and our doctrine is that would be likely (same proviso) to include our dear friend Navidad.

We insist that people who have been living together unmarried be married before they are baptized- a civil marriage, or any kind of legal marriage - (except of course same-sex) so obviously we see that marriage itself is according to the will of God.  Secondly we DEFINE chastity as being "legally and lawfully wed"- other than that we are committing sin.  So obviously ANY legal marriage is "legitimate" in the eyes of the church.  In certain countries a civil marriage is required before sealing anyway - so Navidad and his sweetheart are already half way to being sealed. 

 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I don't see it that way

My experience is that is how nonLDS Christians generally view it though and I was talking about their POV,  not members. 

[Vanguard]

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?

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.

No worries, Navidad. You following your God-bestowed conscience by far outweighs any ordinance performed in this mortality on your behalf. Staying as true as you can to this conscience will result in receiving the fullness of his blessings in the hereafter. ; )

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, Navidad said:

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. 

Depends on the nature of that relationship. If it is subservient to their relationship to God it is probably okay. If not, there is danger. The worst case is someone who sees that affiliation as proof of God’s approval. I have met LDS who are convinced all is well because they are “a member” while they deliberately break God’s laws. You can also identify these people by those who focus on their rights rather than their responsibilities. If someone talks a lot about their right to do something as a father or mother or a bishop or whatever it is a pretty good bet that they are terrible at it.

I do not know how to make this perfect. I have not gotten very far. I expect it will be painful for me at least because it is almost always that way.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, webbles said:

I think he meant coffee with oaxaca chocolate.  Because I've never heard of a ban of just oaxaca chocolate by itself.

Yep- chocolate is definitely NOT a "no-no" in the WoW.

Especially since they now sell caffeinated soft drinks in the temple... 

[mfbukowski]

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

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.

You know I was just thinking about this statement, and no I have not read the book and I can see at least one way this might be misinterpreted quite easily.

Let me add a few words to the offending sentence in a couple of places and see how that changes the interpretation

"I reasoned that without proper legal authority there could be no legitimate marriage; and without legitimate marriage, there could be no legal and therefore genuine plural marriage."

I think what is being confused is that he was talking- possibly- about LEGAL authority creating a "legitimate" marriage- and therefore reasoning that since polygamy was illegal, those unions would never be "legitimate".

Again the context is everything, and I have not seen that- but just taking the sentence on its face, I wonder if that is what he meant?

"

[nuclearfuels]

On 12/5/2019 at 1:52 PM, 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.

1. I don't think God punishes His children for living according to the light they were given, the light and truth they recieved even if that light and truth are not100% within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints.  I believe what you those you have heard and read may have been trying to teach you is that God, despite His infinite love and power, to remain God obey eternal law. That eternal law requires authority.

2. You are a Child of God and a joint-heir with Christ - regardless of your faith. Perhaps the speaker was referring to the sealing ordinance in the Temple where the ultimate goal is to connect ourselves to our ancestors all the way back to Adam and Eve.  You're not a non-heir due to a lack of being baptized by authority; you simply have the opportunity to inherit more, serve more in the Kingdom, etc.

3. Your marriage is not illegitimate. Fidelity in marriage, regardless of religion, is blessed as God can't be a respector of persons can not cease to be God.  As for polygamy, those in the Old Testament who practiced it are sufficient examples for me to process modern polygamy. The colonies in Mexico - I don't know that much about honestly - I think some LDS families moved there after the Official Declarations were issued as they would have then been in compliance with the laws of God and the laws of the land, having exited the US?

 

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Two witnesses- I agree fully, in case that matters.  Poor Navidad on this site gets one opinion after another not knowing what is "official" doctrine- I think it helps if we sustain each other's statements about what the doctrine actually IS.  And yes, they WILL be proxy sealed after they pass away anyway. 

So as they are it is likely that they will be eligible to all blessings available to us- I only say "likely" because I am not their judge, but by what we know about doctrine ALL faithful folks will see the light after death and accept the gospel.  We have many statements by GA's to that effect, and our doctrine is that would be likely (same proviso) to include our dear friend Navidad.

We insist that people who have been living together unmarried be married before they are baptized- a civil marriage, or any kind of legal marriage - (except of course same-sex) so obviously we see that marriage itself is according to the will of God.  Secondly we DEFINE chastity as being "legally and lawfully wed"- other than that we are committing sin.  So obviously ANY legal marriage is "legitimate" in the eyes of the church.  In certain countries a civil marriage is required before sealing anyway - so Navidad and his sweetheart are already half way to being sealed. 

It used to be that common law marriage was as valid as any formal union, and one can see that in Hispanic records where the marriage status is "consensual," which carries all the legal force of formal civil or religious marriage.  I think most of the states of the USA no longer recognize common law marriage.  Everything is statutory now.

[RevTestament]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

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

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.

Good observation about D&C. Again, there really is no scripture in our Standard Works which say one must be baptized to go to Paradise. I relate baptism to rising out of the world in a clean state. It is an ordinance which relates to resurrection. Hence, this is why I said what I did that I feel one does not need to be baptized to be saved to Paradise. 

About the other degree in "Hell." I don't dispute that Hell has degrees. I don't know exactly how that works, but Yeshua did say it would be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon than for Capernaum, and that Capernaum would be "thrust down to Hell." 

19 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

Remember, I am a scripturian. There is no scripture in our standard works which speaks about a "third estate." There is only one scripture which talks about our second estate, and its Abraham 3. Verse 28 makes it clear that the "first estate" is our preexistence, and that Satan(presumably) did not keep his first estate. Our second estate is this life. Whether the "spirit world" constitutes our third estate is not clear from any standard work, but is my interpretation. 

Abraham 3:24 And there stood ^aone among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and ^bwe will make an earth whereon these may ^cdwell;

25 And we will ^aprove them herewith, to see if they will ^bdo all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;

26 And they who ^akeep their first ^bestate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second ^cestate shall have ^dglory added upon their heads for ever and ever.

27 And the ^aLord said: Whom shall I ^bsend? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And ^canother answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will ^dsend the first.

28 And the ^asecond was angry, and kept not his first ^bestate; and, at that day, many followed after him.

It is not just me. The Church uses "third estate" the same way I do.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1984/09/we-are-children-of-god

[Calm]

 

4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

It is not just me. The Church uses "third estate" the same way I do.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1984/09/we-are-children-of-god

Quote

We know that we kept our first estate because we are here in mortality, and by receiving our bodies we have been added upon. We further know that the gospel teaches us how we must keep this, our second estate, in order that in the next life, the third estate, we may “have glory added upon [our] heads for ever and ever.”

Possibly.  He might be referring to post resurrection since he is talking about glory though.

Quote

Though ever supernal in His achievements, Christ always, always gave the glory to the Father whether in the first, second, or now in the third estate.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2004/04/the-precious-promise?lang=eng

Quote

What can we do here in mortality to feel closer to our loved ones who are now departed to their third estate? 

Elder Holland seems to be using it your way.

Three uses on the Church's website, looks like others reasoned in the way you did, but I probably wouldn't describe it as "the Church" using it that way.  Thanks for bringing it to my attention as I hadn't noticed it in the past.

[Tacenda]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yep- chocolate is definitely NOT a "no-no" in the WoW.

Especially since they now sell caffeinated soft drinks in the temple... 

They do? I know they do at BYU now.