Apostasy is worse than murder

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Oh I've read it all, that's why I know it doesn't add up.

I have found that it all adds up into a beautiful, seamless whole, one that reveals the grandeur, mercy, goodness, and wisdom of God. All of which wouldn't mean much if it didn't work, but there again, it has been my experience that it all works exactly as one would expect: reliably, consistently, and predictably.

I reckon that may explain some of the differences between us? 

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't think so.  The community is important.  The saving ordinances are important.  The priesthood is important.  The correct principles found in the "fulness" of the Gospl are important.

Unless, of course, Pres. Nelson conflates what you differentiate.  Joining "the Savior's Church" is part of the "transformation into a disciple of Christ and doing good in the world."

We believe the Church has a lot to do.  It has some very important mandates to fulfill, which must be done by the members.  

Ephesians 4 becomes relevant:

I just can't go along with the notion that discounts or disregards the significance of membership in the Lord's Church, receipt of its saving ordinances, and adherence to its precepts.

Thanks,

-Smac

The importance of all those things are secondary to the importance of charity to all.  I have a vision for the future that sees ordinances, priesthood and church as tools for inclusion and expansion upwards towards the divine in all the positive ways that they can inspire and do good, but removing the exclusivity elements are issues that divide and hurt others.  I'm not sure exactly how to accomplish it specifically and I'm not pretending that I can be a driving force in this vision, but I can think of some pretty obvious areas that need to be changed.    

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Disciple meaning follower correct?  Or more precisely follower of his teachings and perhaps his authority.

I  would say one can't be a disciple of Christ while denying those.  And the only place those teachings and that authority reside today IS in the Church.

To claim to be a disciple of Christ from outside the Church he established strikes me as pretty meaningless.

I think of disciple as a student, more than just a follower.   I generally think the authority arguments that church's create are more negative than positive and I see the central message of the gospel as grounded in the two great commandments.  I don't think Jesus established a Church, historians don't see compelling evidence for that.  Church's serve many good functions, but exclusivity claims aren't one of them.   

[JLHPROF]

43 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

 

The LDS like JL are in for a rude awakening when they see many non-LDS with Christ, and many of their LDS friends/family not with Him, IMO. There is no way, that God/Jesus would only have 1 percent of this world be able to be with Him. He loves all and wants them to be with Him. He wouldn't establish a brick and mortar church and exclude billions like that if they know and follow Him.

Not really.  I fully expect many to accept the truth at some point in this life or the hereafter.  They've already accepted Christ as Lord.  They just haven't figured out how to follow him yet. 

You're thinking I mean LDS Church members are the only ones who will be in Christ's kingdom.  I don't.  The  only members of Christ's kingdom will be those who accept baptism authorized by Christ in whatever dispensation they lived or vicariously through baptism for the dead.

I actually expect that will eventually include a larger percent than Church members.  Those that reject or break this covenant with Christ are the ones who will be excluded.

[JLHPROF]

25 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think of disciple as a student, more than just a follower.   I generally think the authority arguments that church's create are more negative than positive and I see the central message of the gospel as grounded in the two great commandments.  I don't think Jesus established a Church, historians don't see compelling evidence for that.  Church's serve many good functions, but exclusivity claims aren't one of them.   

Ignoring the word Church, scripture is pretty clear Christ established a hierarchical authority.

[Navidad]

34 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

They just haven't figured out how to follow him yet. 

You clearly have never met my wife! I know of no Christian who is a closer follower of Christ than she is. In fact she gave the only sacrament talk during our ward's Christmas service on the 22nd. On the stand was the bishop, stake president, and a visiting area seventy who presided. I know I am biased, but I have rarely heard the chapel so hushed as she shared her love for the Christ child. The hugs, tears, and thanks were plentiful. It was a beautiful thing to see the folks so responsive to the sacrament talk given by "Sister Mennonite!" 

Edited January 5, 2020 by Navidad
Grammar

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am happy to hear that.

I think you are right.

Thank you for sharing this.  I will give it some thought.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for your kind spirit!

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

You clearly have never met my wife! I know of no Christian who is a closer follower of Christ than she is. In fact she gave the only sacrament talk during our ward's Christmas service on the 22nd. On the stand was the bishop, stake president, and a visiting area seventy who presided. I know I am biased, but I have rarely heard the chapel so hushed as she shared her love for the Christ child. The hugs, tears, and thanks were plentiful. It was a beautiful thing to see the folks so responsive to the sacrament talk given by "Sister Mennonite!" 

You apparently misunderstand what I mean by following Christ and all that entails.

But I am glad your wife has a great love for our Savior.

[hope_for_things]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Ignoring the word Church, scripture is pretty clear Christ established a hierarchical authority.

Not at all.  Calling disciples is not the same as establishing a hierarchical authority.  All that developed well after Jesus's life.  

[teddyaware]

38 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Not at all.  Calling disciples is not the same as establishing a hierarchical authority.  All that developed well after Jesus's life.  

Really? 

27 Now ye are the body of Christ (the Church of Christ), and members in particular.

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles secondarily prophets, thirdly Teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments , diversities of tongues. (1Cor:12)

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. (Eph 3)

22 Of the Melchizedek Priesthood , three Presiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church. (D&C 107)

1 Verily, verily, I say unto you my servant Frederick G. Williams: Listen to the voice of him who speaketh, to the word of the Lord your God, and hearken to the calling wherewith you are called, even to be a ^ahigh priest in my church, and a ^bcounselor unto my servant Joseph Smith, Jun.; 

2 Unto whom I have given the ^akeys of the kingdom, which belong always unto the ^bPresidency of the High Priesthood: (D&C 81)

l don’t understand how such basic doctrine pertaining to the very well known hierarchical structure of the Church of Christ could be missed? 
 

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

12 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well that is simply your rigid opinion and not worth more than that. As long as I am on the rolls of the Church I can identify as MORMON or not, Up to me.  Does not matter whether I am particpating or not even if I have a fervent belief that Joseph Smith was not a prophet and that the LDS leaders have no more communication with God then anyone else on the planet.

Of course that is my opinion and not worth more than yours to anyone else but me.

 

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't begrudge you in you holding on to whatever vestiges of our faith you can. I'm all for it, in fact.  Even if it's just the popular label, that's something.

Nevertheless, I think Scott's point is valid.  By way of illustration: In 2018 my wife took a trip to the UK with her sister.  She was there on a Sunday, and she attended Church services somewhere in London.  They found an immediate community there.  It wasn't about nationality, or language, or political ideology, or race, or socioeconomic status.  The thing around which the community coheres, the thing that gives its individual members something in common with each other, is faith.  Some measure of common acceptance of, as Scott put it, "a set of beliefs, principles and values."

I had similar experiences when I was in the military.  There was a strong sense of community and cohesion with other members, which arose almost entirely from religious observance.  I spent a year at a military language school on a small military base in Monterey, California.  There was a designated corner on the base where the members of the Church met to catch a ride (those of us who lacked transportation).  The local ward would always send an empty van to pick us up (4-7 of us).  Several of us arrived early at the spot early so that we could chat and catch up.  Then we got in the van and went to church together.  We also had periodic firesides and FHE meetings.  These things were very edifying and comforting for us.  We are young and far from home, so it felt great to re-connect with fellow members of the community.  But again, that connection came through commonality in terms of belief and observance. 

Without this commonality, what unique affinity do we have?  What sort of "community?"  What is the connective tissue, if not faith?

In any event, I hope you hold on.  I find this excerpt from the EoM poignant: 

I'm not casting this into your teeth.  I'm quoting it with sincerity.  I too frequently fail to follow these admonishments.

Thanks,

-Smac

By way of clarification, I heartily accept that we should continue to minister and be kind to those who have strayed. We are commanded to do so, of course. 
 

What I can’t accept is the notion — and we’ve seen it for many years among our antagonists, lately from Sam Young — is that having Church membership in one’s ancestral line going back X number of generations, or having held this or that Church calling or having worked in the Church for X number of years endows one with any appreciable credibility in contradicting or disparaging doctrines or leaders of the Church or saying or doing things that hurt or destroy the faith of the weak and vulnerable. Notwithstanding my own background in the Church, I don’t claim that privilege for myself, and I don’t grant it to others. 
 

I reiterate what I said, which Smac has so eloquently affirmed and illustrated here: “Mormonism” (so called) is not an ethnicity; rather, it is collective acceptance of faith and adherence to sacred covenants. 

[hope_for_things]

6 hours ago, teddyaware said:

l don’t understand how such basic doctrine pertaining to the very well known hierarchical structure of the Church of Christ could be missed? 

I’m taking about historical evidence from the NT, not creative apologetics or claimed revelation on the subject.  

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m taking about historical evidence from the NT, not creative apologetics or claimed revelation on the subject.  

Matt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

 

[pogi]

27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m taking about historical evidence from the NT, not creative apologetics or claimed revelation on the subject.  

That was from the NT.  He was comparing the ancient organization established in the NT with the modern one.

Curious, why do you dismiss revelation?  Do you believe that he stopped leading Peter and others once he died?  Do you believe in an immediate great apostasy at his death?  Because you seem to dismiss anything that was not said by Christ himself.

13 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I have a vision for the future that sees ordinances, priesthood and church as tools for inclusion and expansion upwards towards the divine in all the positive ways that they can inspire and do good, but removing the exclusivity elements are issues that divide and hurt others.  I'm not sure exactly how to accomplish it specifically and I'm not pretending that I can be a driving force in this vision, but I can think of some pretty obvious areas that need to be changed.    

Interesting.  You seem to dismiss the guidance and revelation as revealed by those called and set apart by Christ himself in the ancient church, and set yourself up as a visionary that can do better.  They didn’t have the right vision or understand Christ’s message and desire, even though they walked and talked with him daily, but you do. Hmm...

Edited January 5, 2020 by pogi

[pogi]

14 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I have a vision for the future that sees ordinances, priesthood and church as tools for inclusion.    

Tools for inclusion into what exactly?  Are none excluded in your vision?  Where there is inclusion, there must be exclusion.  Unless you are a pure universalist - in which case, why would we need the ordinances etc.?  Why would we need “tools” of inclusion if everyone is already included? If everyone is not included in your vision, then you are an “exclusionist”, like the rest of us (at least, that is how we are judged).  

We already use those things as tools of inclusion, we sacrifice countless hours performing the ordinances for the dead even, with the ultimate goal to include anyone who wants to be included.

Edited January 5, 2020 by pogi

[Metis_LDS]

13 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I have a vision for the future that sees ordinances, priesthood and church as tools for inclusion and expansion upwards towards the divine in all the positive ways that they can inspire and do good, but removing the exclusivity elements are issues that divide and hurt others.

I feel what you say is already going on in the Spirit World with ordinances for the dead.  Things are so different there, no money worries, no hunger, no sickness and a strong idea that there is more because you are a Spirit waiting for a new body. 

[Navidad]

12 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

You apparently misunderstand what I mean by following Christ and all that entails.

But I am glad your wife has a great love for our Savior.

Perhaps, would you then share with me what you mean by following Christ and all that entails in the context of a personal relationship with Him that is freely available to all who believe, commit, covenant, and in faith respond to His call, "Come, follow me?" I think it would be helpful if we could stick to the essentials of a relationship with Christ, not those things that are important to individual Christian churches or faiths. For example, if we have such a conversation I promise not to impose on you Mennonite standards of separation from the world (no dancing), a commitment to peace and conflict resolution, a rock-hard belief in not bearing arms, the necessity of the ordinance of foot-washing, an amillennial perspective on eschatology, head coverings for women, etc, etc. These things are a solid part of the historic Mennonite doctrinal system, based on our understanding and interpretation of scripture, but we know that others do not share those beliefs, understandings, and interpretations. I certainly don't share all of them. They certainly are not required before I would think that someone from another group is following Christ.

There are certain facts about each other that it might be best not to hash over - we can stipulate to them. I am not a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You are. You are not a member of the Mennonite Church USA. I am. You have a Word of Wisdom that is very important to you. So do I. It simply varies in some things. Members of the COJCOLDS dance - the absolute epitome of worldliness (said with smile). I don't. You don't drink coffee as a spiritual principle. I don't drink it because I don't like it. I don't play cards. Many of my LDS friends do. I have no idea and don't care if you do. If your profile is referring to the same "Happy Valley" that all my family is from, then I stipulate to the superiority of Penn State football to all other programs. 

I was baptized by immersion in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as a testimony of my repentance, commitment and desire to emulate Christ by one with authority to do so in my church. I made covenants at that time that I think of during every sacrament service. You were baptized by immersion for the forgiveness of sins after you had answered questions and demonstrated the same things I did. You were baptized by someone with authority to do so in your church. You remember them during sacrament.

I faithfully attend a LDS ward and have done so for years. So do you. I participate, minister in every way that I am allowed. So do you. I don't attend the temple. You most likely do, but I understand a majority of members of the COJCOLDS don't. I tithe. I assume you do.

I daily pray, read scripture and take time to reflect on my experience with Christ. You most likely do too. I endeavor to serve and love my neighbors as I love Christ. I assume you do too. I love and am faithful to my wife. If you are married, I assume you do too. I stipulate to all of that. 

My wife and I have prayed for several years about joining the LDS church. We see much in it that is good. We do not have a witness of the Spirit that we should join. After such times of seeking, we agree that the church is as Christian as is our home church. We do not see the "more" that membership would add to our Christian experience. We see the "different" that it would add, but not more. You are a member, believe you have "more," instead of "different." That is a distinction that I stipulate to.

In your faith, you have a group of core essentials. In ours, we have the same. We might vary in some of them, but I don't believe that means that either of us do not follow Christ in all that doing so entails. I believe in and understand salvation and sanctification. You believe in and understand salvation and exaltation. There are probably some differences, but nothing that means that one or the other of us do not follow Christ. I have assurance of my salvation as long as I remain faithful. I am not big on eternal security. I struggle at times personally with the sanctification part. I am not always who, what, and where I should be in my faithfulness to Christ. I think you have assurance of your salvation, but perhaps not of your exaltation. I can't speak for your struggle to be consistent. That is none of my business.

I am sure there is much more we could stipulate to. I am also sure there are certain doctrinal non-essentials with which we would differ.......I am not convinced there are five levels of heaven, I am not convinced about spirit-babies, I am more interested in living forever in the presence of God the Father and His Son with the Family of God than with my biological family. That is something pretty foreign to me. I grew up singing "I'm so glad I'm a part of the family of God." There were no songs or teachings about the biological family. In fact, I think we (non-LDS Christians) were pretty inconsistent on that point. I stipulate to that.

I stipulate that I am 70 years old, have endeavored to follow Christ with all that entails for the better part of 63 years. I stipulate that I have failed and let Him down. You don't need to remind me of those times. But like the Psalmist in Psalm 42:1 As the deer panteth after the waterbrooks, so I hunger and thirst after God and to follow the path He has for my life as long as I have breath. From your posts, I believe you do too. So, if we can stipulate to all of that, what part of that which is entailed in following Christ am I missing? Is there more than disagreements on the unique one-of-a-kind nature of the LDS Church? Do those disagreements, things we cannot both stipulate to impact either of our desire and commitment to following Christ?

Also, in the context of this thread. I have studied LDS history for 30 years.We have attended and served in an LDS ward into our third year. We endeavor and struggle, frankly to understand some certain specific LDS doctrines. As already stipulated, my wife and I have not found a testimony of the "onliness" of the LDS Church. We have found a testimony of the "equalness," the parity of the LDS Church and LDS Christians (more importantly) with non-LDS churches and Christians of a variety of other denominations. That is indeed our testimony. Because we have knowledge of certain and specific LDS doctrines that are different from our Mennonite perspectives and have not embraced them, are we apostates as well? Have we rejected "the gospel" of Christ? I don't think I can stipulate to that!😮

 

Edited January 5, 2020 by Navidad
add some humor and correct typos

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m taking about historical evidence from the NT, not creative apologetics or claimed revelation on the subject.

Is sola scriptura part of your new beliefs?

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

By way of clarification, I heartily accept that we should continue to minister and be kind to those who have strayed. We are commanded to do so, of course. 
 

What I can’t accept is the notion — and we’ve seen it for many years among our antagonists, lately from Sam Young — is that having Church membership in one’s ancestral line going back X number of generations, or having held this or that Church calling or having worked in the Church for X number of years endows one with any appreciable credibility in contradicting or disparaging doctrines or leaders of the Church or saying or doing things that hurt or destroy the faith of the weak and vulnerable. Notwithstanding my own background in the Church, I don’t claim that privilege for myself, and I don’t grant it to others. 
 

I reiterate what I said, which Smac has so eloquently affirmed and illustrated here: “Mormonism” (so called) is not an ethnicity; rather, it is collective acceptance of faith and adherence to sacred covenants. 

It’s a Creed. 🙂
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHBL0HQRJMI

 

Edited January 5, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Navidad]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I reiterate what I said, which Smac has so eloquently affirmed and illustrated here: “Mormonism” (so called) is not an ethnicity; rather, it is collective acceptance of faith and adherence to sacred covenants. 

Well said. Mennonitism is also often referred to as an ethnicity. In the same way that you have described, it is rather a collective acceptance of faith and adherence to sacred covenants just as is "Mormonism" (so called).

[Calm]

21 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

have a vision for the future that sees ordinances, priesthood and church as tools for inclusion and expansion upwards towards the divine in all the positive ways that they can inspire and do good, but removing the exclusivity elements are issues that divide and hurt others. 

So would this be like having a school that has no grades levels or anything assigned so kids can go to whatever classes they want when they want, no tests to identify/separate kids by how much they have learned, no teachers as that would be authority that excludes others from having the same?

Edited January 5, 2020 by Calm

[Teancum]

On 1/4/2020 at 4:51 PM, smac97 said:

I don't begrudge you in you holding on to whatever vestiges of our faith you can. I'm all for it, in fact.  Even if it's just the popular label, that's something.

Nevertheless, I think Scott's point is valid.  By way of illustration: In 2018 my wife took a trip to the UK with her sister.  She was there on a Sunday, and she attended Church services somewhere in London.  They found an immediate community there.  It wasn't about nationality, or language, or political ideology, or race, or socioeconomic status.  The thing around which the community coheres, the thing that gives its individual members something in common with each other, is faith.  Some measure of common acceptance of, as Scott put it, "a set of beliefs, principles and values."

I had similar experiences when I was in the military.  There was a strong sense of community and cohesion with other members, which arose almost entirely from religious observance.  I spent a year at a military language school on a small military base in Monterey, California.  There was a designated corner on the base where the members of the Church met to catch a ride (those of us who lacked transportation).  The local ward would always send an empty van to pick us up (4-7 of us).  Several of us arrived early at the spot early so that we could chat and catch up.  Then we got in the van and went to church together.  We also had periodic firesides and FHE meetings.  These things were very edifying and comforting for us.  We are young and far from home, so it felt great to re-connect with fellow members of the community.  But again, that connection came through commonality in terms of belief and observance. 

Without this commonality, what unique affinity do we have?  What sort of "community?"  What is the connective tissue, if not faith?

In any event, I hope you hold on.  I find this excerpt from the EoM poignant: 

I'm not casting this into your teeth.  I'm quoting it with sincerity.  I too frequently fail to follow these admonishments.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you Smac. I appreciate your comments and can see your points.  And in some ways Scott's as well. That said maybe I view my situation differently. I am fifth generation LDS from England and Denmark. I have a strong Utah heritage. One of my ancestors built a flour mill in Bicknell Utah that still stands and is a Utah historic site. Another great, great grandfather was a tailor who made clothes for Brigham Young.I gave 58 years of devotion to the LDS Church in both time, money, teaching my family and service. Even with my questions and doubts I continued till just recently to attend, serve and tithe. My non attendance is just a recent thing. I still do have a yearning to start going at least to sacrament meeting. My name is on the church records still. Where I go from here I do not know. But as long as I leave my name on the church records I will claim the Mormon identification.

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

By way of clarification, I heartily accept that we should continue to minister and be kind to those who have strayed. We are commanded to do so, of course. 
 

What I can’t accept is the notion — and we’ve seen it for many years among our antagonists, lately from Sam Young — is that having Church membership in one’s ancestral line going back X number of generations, or having held this or that Church calling or having worked in the Church for X number of years endows one with any appreciable credibility in contradicting or disparaging doctrines or leaders of the Church or saying or doing things that hurt or destroy the faith of the weak and vulnerable. Notwithstanding my own background in the Church, I don’t claim that privilege for myself, and I don’t grant it to others. 
 

I reiterate what I said, which Smac has so eloquently affirmed and illustrated here: “Mormonism” (so called) is not an ethnicity; rather, it is collective acceptance of faith and adherence to sacred covenants. 

I am good with that. See my response to Smac's post. I think you know, based on what I have shared here, that I am not openly antagonistic towards the church, am careful of what I say to anyone, am fairly quiet in my local community and am open to any direction that God may give me, if he is there.

[Calm]

20 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

They just haven't figured out how to follow him yet. 

I would write it as “fully follow” him as in it is not just about asking Christ to be our teacher,  but learning to walk all the paths he walked with the intent we follow him on them, not only in mortal life, but pre and post mortality.  Many of these paths can be walked by nonmembers (learning to understand charity or forgiveness, for example, imo), but some paths are unique to the Church (living the life created by participation in certain ordinances and manifestations of priesthood).
 

I would not be surprised to learn there were paths unique to other organizations established by the Lord that everyone needs to walk, so that church members have those paths to walk postdeath to fulfill our discipleship just as other nonmember disciples will need to walk the paths provided through the Restored Church through our ordinances eventually.  The knowledge and experiences of God would likely involve a massive amount that takes more than a mortal lifetime to absorb and process as God teaches us and it seems efficient to divide the required paths throughout mankind’s existence if it is not a completely linear movement of discipleship (able to focus on different areas in different orders rather than a step 1, step 2, step 3...).  I suspect it is the final steps that are likely most ‘linear’, step by specific step, where the accumulation of the experiences of our lives are all put together in proper relationship to each other like a complicated 3D puzzle made up of other 2D puzzles or rather 4D since the final puzzle is integrating all of our existence through time (think something like having an ultimate graduation ceremony after having completed every last possible degree in existence taken in various orders by individual preferences plus a final post post graduate degree that blends and binds them all together so you know how all that knowledge interacts and works with each other).

[Calm]

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m taking about historical evidence from the NT...

And what would that be exactly?  Is there historical evidence for Christ’s miraculous birth, his miracles such as healings or calming the sea, his resurrection or most important in my view, his Atonement, or are you talking about evidence for the words of his teaching or something else?

Edited January 5, 2020 by Calm