Navidad Posted January 6, 2020 Posted January 6, 2020 54 minutes ago, Calm said: 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). Hi Calm: I have a lot of respect for you and am trying to understand what you are saying. I don't think this is it, but I wish we (LDS and non-LDS Christians) could approach each other from a perspective that acknowledges that we emphasize and stress different things. I wish we would approach each other as equals in which neither group thinks they are more equal. We stress and emphasize different things but instead of either one thinking they have "more," the emphasis is that each group believes they can learn from the other. For example Mennonites focus teachings and doctrines that center on peace, conflict resolution, non-aggression, humility, focusing on our citizenship in heaven, avoiding war, etc. This doesn't mean we have "more" to offer than our LDS cousins who do not focus on these things. It means we have some different emphases to bring to the dialogue. I can't tell you how many times I have had members of the LDS church assure me that non-LDS Christians are Christians and that we should bring our truths to the LDS church where the "more" that the LDS church has will be added to what we already have. That has happened to me on this very forum over the years. It is always the LDS Christian who has "more." It happened in Elders Quorum a few weeks ago. I was assured the men respected me as a Christian, they just wished I would come to membership so I could access the more that they offer. This is what I long for, a time when the LDS and the non-LDS Christian can sit down together and share the strengths of their differences; not the more or less of their differences. We hear a lot about cognitive biases these days. It just seems to me that it is hard wired into the brain of the LDS member that they have more than other Christians. Am I wrong? Thanks so much for considering my point of view.
3DOP Posted January 6, 2020 Posted January 6, 2020 35 minutes ago, Navidad said: It just seems to me that it is hard wired into the brain of the LDS member that they have more than other Christians. Am I wrong? Thanks so much for considering my point of view. Navidad. Hi. I wish you well. But you are a completely committed Protestant invisible church guy seeking community with visible church people. How can they not think that they have more as the Restored Church? How can I not think I have more as the Catholic Church that needs no restoration? Did Christ establish one true visible church or many "true visible churches" that can't fellowship together even if they supposedly agree on so-called essentials? I do not think you can even identify that there is one true visible church. Where do you go Navidad, for valid priestly sacraments/ordinances? You seem to think they are equally everywhere or nowhere. It isn't complicated, if you want to be LDS, get validly baptized, according to them, LDS. Otherwise be like me, this person on the outside looking in during your life, who according to them, will accept valid baptism after death. I am sure that is what they think for me, and that doesn't bother me. With the gulf of differences separating us, I am still glad that Catholics and LDS agree there is one true church, with one valid priesthood. Do you even believe in one valid priesthood that has valid ordinances? If you do, take your pick. LDS. Catholic. But you can't be consistent in your ecclesiology as expressed in this forum, and believe in only one valid priesthood, or only one true visible church. Be the Protestant Evangelical of your choice, but don't go to a Restored Church, or a never apostate Catholic Church and feel slighted if you perceive we think you are missing out on something. There is no malice towards you on our parts, just from our different perspectives, an important mistake on your part regarding apostolic continuity or apostasy and restoration of necessary priestly ordinances. Regards, 3DOP 4
Calm Posted January 6, 2020 Author Posted January 6, 2020 26 minutes ago, Navidad said: Hi Calm: I have a lot of respect for you and am trying to understand what you are saying. I don't think this is it, but I wish we (LDS and non-LDS Christians) could approach each other from a perspective that acknowledges that we emphasize and stress different things. I wish we would approach each other as equals in which neither group thinks they are more equal. We stress and emphasize different things but instead of either one thinking they have "more," the emphasis is that each group believes they can learn from the other. For example Mennonites focus teachings and doctrines that center on peace, conflict resolution, non-aggression, humility, focusing on our citizenship in heaven, avoiding war, etc. This doesn't mean we have "more" to offer than our LDS cousins who do not focus on these things. It means we have some different emphases to bring to the dialogue. I can't tell you how many times I have had members of the LDS church assure me that non-LDS Christians are Christians and that we should bring our truths to the LDS church where the "more" that the LDS church has will be added to what we already have. That has happened to me on this very forum over the years. It is always the LDS Christian who has "more." It happened in Elders Quorum a few weeks ago. I was assured the men respected me as a Christian, they just wished I would come to membership so I could access the more that they offer. This is what I long for, a time when the LDS and the non-LDS Christian can sit down together and share the strengths of their differences; not the more or less of their differences. We hear a lot about cognitive biases these days. It just seems to me that it is hard wired into the brain of the LDS member that they have more than other Christians. Am I wrong? Thanks so much for considering my point of view. I am not sure this is going to be much more helpful in understanding my interpretations, my mind is only taking it so far tonight and therefore it may miss the puzzle piece that makes the mess make sense...but here is my next effort. I think in this life due to our short lives and limited abilities to absorb, of necessity we each are given a limited number of paths we can take. I am thinking more of an ultimate journey we are taking whose purpose is to travel the world before arriving at the final gathering place appointed by God rather than the idea of trying to follow one straight here to there path to exaltation with the least number of detours from misreading or misplacing the map or intentionally or accidentally wandering to get to the destination. I think in the prexistence there were likely multiple paths, but we were limited as in mortality, though probably not due to time, but capabilities (no body, stronger awareness of Heavenly Parents and what they might want for us and wanting to please them) to what kind of paths were then available and there will be many, many additional paths we need to explore postmortality before we get let loose to explore the Universe. I think we are also telling/sharing our experiences of our paths with each other all along the way as well. Due to our ability to be one with God and therefore each other growing with our experience of discipleship, I believe this means some paths---especially those only able to be experienced in mortality since opportunity for choice is so limited (we can only be born into one family, for example)---will be able to be shared such that it will be as if all had walked that same path where only a few actually did (similar to the Atonement where only Christ walks the full path, but we all benefit from his work)...and thus all will have the same ability to benefit from mortality even though opportunities for growth varied widely. ----- I wouldn't say it was "hard wired" that Saints are "more", but it is our doctrine that certain aspects of mankind's journey to reunite with God and to be one fully with him in exaltation are only available through membership in the Church and so most members would believe the same, though some may choose to believe that doctrine is faulty revelation. Thus at some point in everyone's progression, if they choose to be one with God fully, they must also choose to participate fully in ordinances and other unique experiences of membership in the Church (though what the "membership" means for eternity, I have little clue; I am guessing it is closer to the mortal experience of becoming family than joining a church). Otoh, I would not be surprised if the majority of members had not accepted or even considered the possibility the same might be said for other groups, possibly churches, possibly families/tribes/nations or some other organization. I think many Saints, for example, look on the Restored Gospel as a continuation of the work of Ancient Israel rather than a possible different work that has some shared aspects/missions while I see it as possible Israel (identified by both location and tribal identity) has its own unique missions that are not available through the Restored Gospel at this time (once all God's appointed work becomes one in the next life, all are available). If it is true that there are other possible ordinances or experiences outside the Restored Gospel necessary for mankind it progress, then these would also be available in some form of proxy work for all, including Saints. When families intermarry, bringing talents, genetics, possessions to the greater family that is then created, there could be multiple choices of how to view the reorganization. They might see the new combination as a completely new family (complete change of name so that everyone now has a surname no one had before), they might chose an identity that is a hybrid of families (think hyphenation), or there might be one family that brings all others who join under its tent (all are given that surname). It seems to me we are both already of the family of .God the Father, but are seeking to be given the surname of Christ ( our Father who adopts us). The question for me is whether he has already given a particular family or organization his surname (Kingdom of God) to gather all others under or if this only occurs at judgment. I do see the Church as the Kingdom of God on earth, but I am wondering if there is an Empire of God, or World, Worlds, Systems, Galaxies....of God as well. So my view is the Church is unique in its mission, but I doubt it is unique in being an organization having a unique mission. Does that make clearer what I was talking about? ----- As to what that would mean in terms of equality is that depending on what necessity one was choosing to focus on, one group is of necessity "more" because only it can provide a unique benefit/path of discipleship. However, we talk in the Church of bringing all the good one already has and letting us add to it through others becoming members. Could there be other faiths that could say the same to us? At this point, it appears not according to our doctrine because undergoing certain ordinances given in other faiths is seen as invalidating the covenants we make when we participate in the priesthood ordinances of our faith. So I would say that while it is almost a given in my view that there are those out there, a family so to speak, that have something unique to them and necessary to discipleship, in mortality the name of the ultimate family we are organized under that all disciples are joined under is that of the Restored Gospel. That does not mean there are not other valid paths disciples can be taking during mortality, that the rest are meaningless or even have less meaning. Next life...I don't think we are really capable of understanding the complex simplicity of God, so I am not sure if we would even recognize what ultimately comes next as an organization (which may be why so much of scripture speaks of family). 1
Calm Posted January 6, 2020 Author Posted January 6, 2020 (edited) 46 minutes ago, 3DOP said: Navidad. Hi. I wish you well. But you are a completely committed Protestant invisible church guy seeking community with visible church people. How can they not think that they have more as the Restored Church? How can I not think I have more as the Catholic Church that needs no restoration? Did Christ establish one true visible church or many "true visible churches" that can't fellowship together even if they supposedly agree on so-called essentials? I do not think you can even identify that there is one true visible church. Where do you go Navidad, for valid priestly sacraments/ordinances? You seem to think they are equally everywhere or nowhere. It isn't complicated, if you want to be LDS, get validly baptized, according to them, LDS. Otherwise be like me, this person on the outside looking in during your life, who according to them, will accept valid baptism after death. I am sure that is what they think for me, and that doesn't bother me. With the gulf of differences separating us, I am still glad that Catholics and LDS agree there is one true church, with one valid priesthood. Do you even believe in one valid priesthood that has valid ordinances? If you do, take your pick. LDS. Catholic. But you can't be consistent in your ecclesiology as expressed in this forum, and believe in only one valid priesthood, or only one true visible church. Be the Protestant Evangelical of your choice, but don't go to a Restored Church, or a never apostate Catholic Church and feel slighted if you perceive we think you are missing out on something. There is no malice towards you on our parts, just from our different perspectives, an important mistake on your part regarding apostolic continuity or apostasy and restoration of necessary priestly ordinances. Regards, 3DOP This is, I think, an essential attribute of the doctrine of the Restored Gospel as well as Catholic doctrine as 3DOP has excellently explained. Even if a member believes like me that there are necessities existing outside the visible church that eventually will be part of the family life/organization, the Priesthood is the vehicle by which all else is made family. Edited January 6, 2020 by Calm 1
smac97 Posted January 6, 2020 Posted January 6, 2020 21 minutes ago, Calm said: This is, I think, an essential attribute of the doctrine of the Restored Gospel as well as Catholic doctrine as 3DOP has excellently explained. Even if a member believes like me that there are necessities existing outside the visible church that eventually will be part of the family, the Priesthood is the vehicle by which all else is made family. Yep. Biology, it seems, doesn't do it. Children are sealed to parents by ordinance or by being born in the covenant (which amounts to the same thing). Under the priesthood. Navidad, I hope you follow your conscience and the Spirit as best you know how. I'm not worried about you and people like you. Everything will be sorted out in the end. Thanks, Smac
Bernard Gui Posted January 6, 2020 Posted January 6, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Yep. Biology, it seems, doesn't do it. Children are sealed to parents by ordinance or by being born in the covenant (which amounts to the same thing). Under the priesthood. Navidad, I hope you follow your conscience and the Spirit as best you know how. I'm not worried about you and people like you. Everything will be sorted out in the end. Thanks, Smac As Elder Joseph Anderson said in General Conference, April 1978, Quote The Lord has told us that “men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness; For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.” (D&C 58:27–28.) This quotation refers to nonmembers as well as Church members; all men and women have the power to do good. It is of the utmost importance that they have the desire and determination to live righteously. We should not be employed at any time in service that is not a good cause. When members of the Church are engaged in doing something that is evil or contrary to a good cause, we are not living up to the obligations we took upon ourselves in the waters of baptism. Very many people in the world, not of our church, are engaged in a good cause and are trying to bring forth much righteousness. Those who are endeavoring to improve mankind, who teach faith in God and the living of a goodly life, are engaged in a good cause and shall not lose their reward therefore. Edited January 6, 2020 by Bernard Gui 2
Calm Posted January 6, 2020 Author Posted January 6, 2020 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: As Elder Joseph Anderson said in General Conference, April 1978, I think the question many nonmembers have though is if this doing good is generic as in anyone can do it or if there are callings by God that are exercised by a group...another church or tribe like Israel....something that hasn't been or won't be appropriated by the Restored Church , but must remain outside of it at least during mortality to remain a valid experience. From how I read these kinds of talks, it is a generic doing good that anyone can choose to do for themselves and not really seek out a specific organization to perform it (charity, love, forgiveness, talents developed). Can anyone think of something that is salvific that can only come through membership in another organization, that in mortality Saints are lacking unless converts who were members of this organization? Or an organization that one can be a member of both the Church and it? I can imagine the possibility, but can't think of anything specific that it might be. Edited January 6, 2020 by Calm
Bernard Gui Posted January 6, 2020 Posted January 6, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Calm said: I think the question many nonmembers have though is if this doing good is generic as in anyone can do it or if there are callings by God that are exercised by a group...another church or tribe like Israel....something that hasn't been or won't be appropriated by the Restored Church , but must remain outside of it at least during mortality to remain a valid experience. From how I read these kinds of talks, it is a generic doing good that anyone can choose to do for themselves and not really seek out a specific organization to perform it (charity, love, forgiveness, talents developed). Can anyone think of something that is salvific that can only come through membership in another organization, that in mortality Saints are lacking unless converts who were members of this organization? Or an organization that one can be a member of both the Church and it? I can imagine the possibility, but can't think of anything specific that it might be. No, I cannot. Well, priests and nuns? Does this help clarify? He defines what doing good means. Later in the same talk, he said, Quote But what about eternal life? One might take the view that immortality and eternal life are synonymous. It is true that immortality is part of eternal life, but if we are to have eternal life in the true sense, we must render obedience to the gospel of Jesus Christ, the plan of life and salvation which he has revealed. Only thereby can we obtain the reward of exaltation and eternal life in the presence of our Heavenly Father in his celestial kingdom. The reward for doing good is joy and happiness in this life and eternal life in the great hereafter. To do good is to keep the commandments the Lord has given us. The gospel is the true way of life, the teachings of our Lord and Savior, the light of the world. That which is contrary thereto is darkness and regret. Edited January 6, 2020 by Bernard Gui
Calm Posted January 6, 2020 Author Posted January 6, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: To do good is to keep the commandments the Lord has given us. But the world doesn't recognize temple sealings as commandments the Lord has given us...at least not our version of them. So could there be commandments given to some group that are unique to them now, but later will be available universally? It is an interesting thought experiment to me and I like the idea that the Lord is sanctifying others with a personal touch so to speak, but I lack in depth awareness to judge any possibilities. It seems it would need to be something that tied into eternity in some fashion if an ordinance, but there could be practices that are restricted to mortality in order to give us a chance to think about life in difference ways. Would there need to be an awareness that through their uniqueness they are preparing the way for others to be sanctified (proxy work or something similar)? Edited January 6, 2020 by Calm
Scott Lloyd Posted January 6, 2020 Posted January 6, 2020 On 1/4/2020 at 4:03 PM, 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. Or misguided.
Navidad Posted January 6, 2020 Posted January 6, 2020 (edited) 12 hours ago, 3DOP said: Navidad. Hi. I wish you well. But you are a completely committed Protestant invisible church guy seeking community with visible church people. How can they not think that they have more as the Restored Church? How can I not think I have more as the Catholic Church that needs no restoration? Did Christ establish one true visible church or many "true visible churches" that can't fellowship together even if they supposedly agree on so-called essentials? I do not think you can even identify that there is one true visible church. Where do you go Navidad, for valid priestly sacraments/ordinances? You seem to think they are equally everywhere or nowhere. It isn't complicated, if you want to be LDS, get validly baptized, according to them, LDS. Otherwise be like me, this person on the outside looking in during your life, who according to them, will accept valid baptism after death. I am sure that is what they think for me, and that doesn't bother me. With the gulf of differences separating us, I am still glad that Catholics and LDS agree there is one true church, with one valid priesthood. Do you even believe in one valid priesthood that has valid ordinances? If you do, take your pick. LDS. Catholic. But you can't be consistent in your ecclesiology as expressed in this forum, and believe in only one valid priesthood, or only one true visible church. Be the Protestant Evangelical of your choice, but don't go to a Restored Church, or a never apostate Catholic Church and feel slighted if you perceive we think you are missing out on something. There is no malice towards you on our parts, just from our different perspectives, an important mistake on your part regarding apostolic continuity or apostasy and restoration of necessary priestly ordinances. Regards, 3DOP Lots to think about there. Not sure I understand the distinction between an invisible church and a visible church. Perhaps the different place I am in is that I do not believe in salvific ordinances/sacraments. Therefore the mode, method, and manner of baptism is not essential to me. The communion sacrament is an ordinance of remembrance according to Christ. It is not salvific either. Marriage, foot washing, ordination, and many other ordinances have differing meanings in differing Christian groups. I believe that the church can refer to a specific building or group in a specific place. That is the small c. The Church of Christ universal is the aggregate of the called-out ones (ecclesia) who name Christ as their Lord and Savior regardless of subgroup affiliation. So, any Mormon, Catholic, Baptist, Episcopal, Pentecostal who comes to Christ as redeemer, savior and Lord is a Christian, regardless of what group he or she eventually ends up in, or no group at all. And only individuals can be more or less Christ-like, depending on their commitment, hunger and thirst after righteousness. No one church grouping has more or less of Christ because Christ died for individuals not for churches. He honors the worship of individuals, not of churches. The work of redemption is between Christ and the individual. That is why I believe in the wideness of God's mercy. Oh, and I don't think I have more because I am a Mennonite! It has never entered my mind to extol the virtues of being Mennonite over being Baptist, Mormon, or Catholic. The Catholic Church now accepts my baptism for membership. It does not accept an LDS baptism for membership. That is an administrative decision of the Catholic Church. It has nothing to do with any one individual's eternal destiny or salvation. I believe an individual LDS person who commits to Christ as redeemer, savior, and Lord is a Christian, regardless if the Catholic Church accepts his or her baptism. That is a Catholic Church decision, not God's decision. I believe an individual Mennonite person who commits to Christ as redeemer, savior, and Lord is a Christian, regardless if the LDS Church accept his or her baptism. Which of course it doesn't. That is an LDS Church administrative decision, not God's decision. Of course I grant the Catholic and the LDS and the Mennonite Church their own right to have, hold, cherish, and enforce their own traditions, doctrines, and beliefs. I regret however how often those things divide us. The greater kingdom of God then suffers. I can happily attend gatherings of Christians wherever I find them, with no distinction to denominational affiliation. That is how and why we can attend an LDS ward, and chat with our local Catholic priest who I believe is a fine Christian based on his commitment to Christ. I know he is also committed to the Catholic church. Good for him. That doesn't have to divide us. I can still regret division. I am richer for acknowledging and fellowshipping with Christians wherever I encounter them. Edited January 6, 2020 by Navidad
pogi Posted January 6, 2020 Posted January 6, 2020 A Mormon, a Catholic, and a Mennonite walked into a chat room... ...still trying to figure out the punch line, but this should be interesting! 2
smac97 Posted January 6, 2020 Posted January 6, 2020 (edited) 17 hours ago, Teancum said: 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 lines in the Church going back six generations. Even one line that, IIRC, goes back nine generations (to a very elderly woman who joined the Church in Nauvoo - I'll need to ask my dad). Quote I have a strong Utah heritage. I was born in Hawai'i and lived there until I was 4. I still feel a kinship to it, and an affinity with Pacific Islanders generally. My family lived there for ten years. I have a Hawaiian sister, a Tahitian brother, a Samoan sister-in-law, and so on. My brother lived in Samoa for 14 or so years. So to an extent, I see and acknowledge your point. I still consider myself, in some sense, a "son of the islands," haole though I may be (and even though I have never returned to visit). Quote 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. I think that is laudable. That heritage/identification is very worthwhile. I encourage you to keep working at maintaining it. The challenge, for me, arises when I see someone who attempts to diminish or challenge or undermine the Church and its role in this dispensation by reducing and re-defining one's status as a "Latter-day Saint" to only some squishy cultural thing independent of the Church and its authority and ordinances. Kate Kelly has provided a few examples of this (“I don’t feel like Mormonism is something that washes off,” she said. “I will always be Mormon and that identity is something they cannot take away from me.”). The attempt, I think, is to diminish the role of the Church by, for example, disparaging or dismissing the significance of excommunication (as Kate Kelly was doing). This just does not work for me. Membership in the Church has real, actual value and meaning. As a corollary, the loss of that membership has real, actual meaning and consequences. People like Kate Kelly want to ignore or gloss over, or even disparage, this meaning. It doesn't work. The LDS Church doesn't claim to be just a social club, just a bunch of people getting together to chitchat on Sundays. It claims to be the custodian of "the words of eternal life." It claims to possess authority from God pertaining to prophets and apostles, continuing revelation, saving ordinances, and so on. To be a member of the Church means someting. To serve in and build up the community (the kingdom, no less) means something. To participate in saving ordinances means something. To keep one's covenants means something. This attitude is often seen in circumstances where someone seeks to use their pedigree in the Church to bolster their credibility in opposing it. So we see members of the Church trading on their membership as some sort of carte blanche to publicly slander/vilify/demean/ridicule it. The perspective appears to be, essentially, "I'm a member of the Church (or a former member, or I have family who are members, etc.), so I get to say whatever I darn well want about it." This perspective is, I must admit, particularly aggravating to me. I have very little patience for it (and yes, such impatience is something I need to work to address). I view it as something comparable to people who feel justified in verbally abusing a spouse or family member, on the basis of kinship. It turns the relationship on its head. Rather than kinship bringing out the best expressions of ourselves, it becomes a pretext, an excuse to mistreat and abuse our kin (in this case, other members of the Church, and even the Church itself). By way of illustration: I met my wife at BYU in January, and married her a year later. During that year I was on my best behavior. I struck up conversations with her. I listened to her thoughts and opinions as we walked around campus or studied together. I eventually worked up enough nerve to ask her out. While we dated, I was attentive and polite and considerate. Over the summer we wrote and called each other. During the Summer I travelled to her home to meet her family. Again, I was on my best behavior. I spoke and laughed with her parents and siblings. I used this trip to propose to her, and she said yes. I spoke separately with her parents to ask for their blessing/approval, and they each gave me sound counsel, which I accepted and took seriously. We then married in December (we just celebrated our 23rd anniversary!). A few weeks later we were visiting my sister at her home, and the conversation turned a bit raucous. (I should note here that the family I grew up in, whom I dearly love, nevertheless had a collective sense of humor that tended toward sarcasm, sharpness, etc.) Well, after a while I began to "loosen up" and join in the sort of sharp-edged commentary and joking that I had experienced growing up. Then, almost before I realized it, I found myself making a sarcastic joke about my wife. Not exactly cruel, but nevertheless a bit sharp and biting. She gave me a look that I still remember to this day. It was a look of surprise. And some hurt. I had spent a year pursuing and persuading this wonderful person to spend her life with me, but within weeks of tying the knot I was making biting jokes at her expense. In that instant I had a very specific thought come to mind, one that I have remembered to this day: "Hmm. This is what it must feel like to kick a puppy." Per the old saying, I had let familiarity breed contempt, or at least begin to. Enough that I recognized it as such, and so did my wife. At that moment I realized that I needed to change. I needed to return to being on my "best behavior" toward my wife. This is a lesson I have re-visited and re-learned in varying ways and degrees during the ensuing 23 years. My wife have since created our own "community." A family of eight. I am a very flawed person, but I have worked hard to banish from my words and thoughts and deeds the notion that my relationship with my wife and children somehow gives me license or entitlement to mistreat them, either publicly or privately. So it is, in my view, with membership in the Church. The community we are creating is important. Membership in that community has significant value, but it should not be used as a pretext for maltreatment, private or public, of the community or its constituent members. Familiarity should not breed contempt. Thanks, -Smac Edited January 6, 2020 by smac97 4
Navidad Posted January 6, 2020 Posted January 6, 2020 (edited) 9 hours ago, Calm said: But the world doesn't recognize temple sealings as commandments the Lord has given us...at least not our version of them. So could there be commandments given to some group that are unique to them now, but later will be available universally? It is an interesting thought experiment to me and I like the idea that the Lord is sanctifying others with a personal touch so to speak, but I lack in depth awareness to judge any possibilities. It seems it would need to be something that tied into eternity in some fashion if an ordinance, but there could be practices that are restricted to mortality in order to give us a chance to think about life in difference ways. Would there need to be an awareness that through their uniqueness they are preparing the way for others to be sanctified (proxy work or something similar)? This conversation is helping me to realize a few things. Thanks for that. First, that I agree the priesthood is important, yes even essential. However I do not believe that comes via any church (not any particular church - not by any church). The priesthood I hold is that which is found in I Peter 2: 9 - But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. This was not said to a church, but to individual Christians scattered around the Roman Empire. It is individuals (not a church) that dwell in darkness and via the atonement come into Christ's marvelous light and then praise Christ with their life. The "ye" after the "but" is the word umeis - it is a 2nd person pronoun - nominative and plural. Peter is writing to scattered Christians. He says in effect you - all of you - are a royal priesthood. This was never directed at some folks in one specific church. He was talking to Christians as a group. The royal priesthood I hold is granted me by Christ - it is indeed an extension of the Melchizedek priesthood - called royal because Christ was/is king and priest and he grants it to all true believers. It is given to me as an individual by Christ when I accept his atonement. It is not granted by a church. Now, in addition I am also a Rev. - an ordained minister. This is a priesthood of another sort. This is an administrative priesthood granted me by a church. When I sit on my back patio with our local Catholic priest, or with my LDS bishop, there are two types of priesthood represented in each of us. One that is royal and sacred (I Peter 2:9) and one that is administrative - granted by our respective churches. One is available to each and every individual Christian and one is limited to those to whom it is granted by a denomination/church/group. We know that no LDS priesthood holder may baptize in a Catholic environment. No Catholic priesthood holder may baptize in an LDS environment. This is the administrative priesthood and is completely different from the royal priesthood. This is my belief about the priesthood. Second, this clarifies for me my belief that anything salvific is not of a church - not any church. No church has the power or authority to save. Not through its ordinances, its sermons, liturgy, rites, or anything else. The Mennonite Church never saved anyone. The LDS Church never saved anyone. The Catholic Church never saved anyone. That is why Billy Graham could hold his crusades with no specific church affiliation. Thousands came to Christ without the help, assistance, ordinance, or rite of any church. The individual who walks in the cathedral of the forest and bows and prays to the Savior, acknowledging and repenting of his sin becomes a priest. No church needed. The thief on the cross, for example - the Savior called out to him and saved him just as he does the person in the forest. The church adds teaching, worship, fellowship, ministry. That is it. Nothing else. Of course if a person belongs to a church and makes commitments and gains knowledge of other different aspects of the Christian life that the particular church emphasizes, he or she may wash feet, go to the temple, tithe, teach, minister, or become a conscientious objector. That is all wonderful, but it is not salvific. This is what I believe, I am not preaching or evangelizing anyone on this board to agree with me. I am in essence talking to myself out loud. Today is Three Kings Day here in Mexico. It is a special day, especially for the children. It will be celebrated by churches that celebrate Epiphany. It will be ignored in other churches. That is the way it is. Different churches add different things to the Christian life. That is their purpose. Third, that many of my friends in the Catholic and LDS Church don't, can't, and won't agree with what I have written. That is ok with me. It would be silly for it not to be. I am realizing that it is not the disagreement that bothers me. It is the "better," the "more," the "only" of one or the other that bothers me. Especially the "only." It seems to me that before the 1920's the Church's position was a bit more hard line. "Only" really meant "Only." Today it seems that for whatever reason the Church is moderating its perspective a bit to where "only" leans toward "more." That is my reading, I don't expect many to agree with me. It is kind of like how I read the changes in LDS writing about the apostasy. It seems to have moderated over time. For many of you the Church is where it is at. For those of you who are LDS, the LDS Church is the "only" place it is at. Fourth, we realize full well that we are attending a LDS ward. That is our choice. We have no expectation that anyone will change or temper their message/testimony because we are there. It is good for us to be there. It is always good to expand your horizons and learn what other folks think and believe. Right now it is our choice to stay or go. Some day they may tell us to go. Who knows? Thanks to all. Edited January 6, 2020 by Navidad
Navidad Posted January 6, 2020 Posted January 6, 2020 7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Or misguided. Hmm? Do I want to be meaningless or misguided? Thanks for the choice!
Tacenda Posted January 6, 2020 Posted January 6, 2020 19 minutes ago, Navidad said: This conversation is helping me to realize a few things. Thanks for that. First, that I agree the priesthood is important, yes even essential. However I do not believe that comes via any church (not any particular church - not by any church). The priesthood I hold is that which is found in I Peter 2: 9 - But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. This was not said to a church, but to individual Christians scattered around the Roman Empire. It is individuals (not a church) that dwell in darkness and via the atonement come into Christ's marvelous light and then praise Christ with their life. The royal priesthood I hold is granted me by Christ - it is indeed an extension of the Melchizedek priesthood - called royal because Christ was/is king and priest and he grants it to all true believers. It is given to me as an individual by Christ when I accept his atonement. It is not granted by a church. Now, in addition I am also a Rev. - an ordained minister. This is a priesthood of another sort. This is an administrative priesthood granted me by a church. When I sit on my back patio with our local Catholic priest, or with my LDS bishop, there are two types of priesthood represented in each of us. One that is royal and sacred (I Peter 2:9) and one that is administrative - granted by our respective churches. One is available to each and every individual Christian and one is limited to those to whom it is granted by a denomination/church/group. This is my belief about the priesthood. Second, this clarifies for me my belief that anything salvific is not of a church - not any church. No church has the power or authority to save. Not through its ordinances, its sermons, liturgy, rites, or anything else. The Mennonite Church never saved anyone. The LDS Church never saved anyone. The Catholic Church never saved anyone. That is why Billy Graham could hold his crusades with no specific church affiliation. Thousands came to Christ without the help, assistance, ordinance, or rite of any church. The individual who walks in the cathedral of the forest and bows and prays to the Savior, acknowledging and repenting of his sin becomes a priest. No church needed. The thief on the cross, for example - the Savior called out to him and saved him just as he does the person in the forest. The church adds teaching, worship, fellowship, ministry. That is it. Nothing else. Of course if a person belongs to a church and makes commitments and gains knowledge of other different aspects of the Christian life that the particular church emphasizes, he or she may wash feet, go to the temple, tithe, teach, minister, or become a conscientious objector. That is all wonderful, but it is not salvific. This is what I believe, I am not preaching or evangelizing anyone on this board to agree with me. I am in essence talking to myself out loud. Today is Three Kings Day here in Mexico. It is a special day, especially for the children. It will be celebrated by churches that celebrate Epiphany. It will be ignored in other churches. That is the way it is. Different churches add different things to the Christian life. That is their purpose. Third, that many of my friends in the Catholic and LDS Church don't, can't, and won't agree with what I have written. That is ok with me. It would be silly for it not to be. I am realizing that it is not the disagreement that bothers me. It is the "better," the "more," the "only" that bothers me. Especially the "only." It seems to me that before the 1920's the Church's position was a bit more hard line. "Only" really meant "Only." Today it seems that for whatever reason the Church is moderating its perspective a bit to where "only" leans toward "more." That is my reading, I don't expect many to agree with me. It is kind of like how I read the changes in LDS writing about the apostasy. It seems to have moderated over time. For many of you the Church is where it is at. For those of you who are LDS, the LDS Church is the "only" place it is at. Fourth, we realize full well that we are attending a LDS ward. That is our choice. We have no expectation that anyone will change or temper their message/testimony because we are there. It is good for us to be there. It is always good to expand your horizons and learn what other folks think and believe. Right now it is our choice to stay or go. Some day they may tell us to go. Who knows? Thanks to all. On the third point, when the LDS say "only" and they lose their testimony in the church, they also lose their testimony in the Saviour and become Atheist or agnostic. Unlike those that didn't have an allegiance to a brick and mortar church or institution, but have their testimony entirely in a Saviour no matter what religion they are in. I wonder if God/Jesus are upset that Joseph Smith said things that don't apply, like men becoming Gods. I wonder if those that believe this will be condemned. This is where I'm at, the thought that this is a bad thing, not a good thing. Because the "more" in the church is becoming exalted, meaning someone that can become what God is and create their own world. It took me a long time and I went to the temple multiple times, before I understood what that all meant. My main goal was to be able to live with God, that was it.
smac97 Posted January 6, 2020 Posted January 6, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Navidad said: First, that I agree the priesthood is important, yes even essential. However I do not believe that comes via any church (not any particular church - not by any church). The priesthood I hold is that which is found in I Peter 2: 9 - But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. This was not said to a church, but to individual Christians scattered around the Roman Empire. I guess this comes down to interpretation. What "priesthood" means. Who has it. How is it conferred. What was the "church" in that era. And so on. The passage you are reading is invoked by both those who subscribe to the Luther/Tyndale-derived "Priesthood of All Believers / Universal Priesthood" concept (see, e.g. here), but also by those groups that sort believe in both "Priesthood of All Believers" and a hierarchical-and-ordained-to-it "priesthood" (such as the Catholics - see here), and also by the Latter-day Saints (who believe that the Priesthood is "power" and "authority" that is necessarily and only conferred by ordination by those in authority through the laying on of hands, see here, here and here). Quote It is individuals (not a church) that dwell in darkness and via the atonement come into Christ's marvelous light and then praise Christ with their life. The royal priesthood I hold is granted me by Christ - it is indeed an extension of the Melchizedek priesthood - called royal because Christ was/is king and priest and he grants it to all true believers. It is given to me as an individual by Christ when I accept his atonement. It is not granted by a church. Now, in addition I am also a Rev. - an ordained minister. This is a priesthood of another sort. This is an administrative priesthood granted me by a church. When I sit on my back patio with our local Catholic priest, or with my LDS bishop, there are two types of priesthood represented in each of us. One that is royal and sacred (I Peter 2:9) and one that is administrative - granted by our respective churches. One is available to each and every individual Christian and one is limited to those to whom it is granted by a denomination/church/group. This is my belief about the priesthood. Thank you for sharing. I have often wondered how specific, noted-in-the-Bible offices (apostle, etc.) are approached by folks who subscribe to a "Priesthood of All Believers." Do you believe it falls into the purely "administrative" side of things? Or can anyone who believes in Christ adopt for himself the title of "Apostle" (or "Bishop," etc.)? Quote Second, this clarifies for me my belief that anything salvific is not of a church - not any church. No church has the power or authority to save. Not through its ordinances, its sermons, liturgy, rites, or anything else. The Mennonite Church never saved anyone. The LDS Church never saved anyone. The Catholic Church never saved anyone. That is why Billy Graham could hold his crusades with no specific church affiliation. Thousands came to Christ without the help, assistance, ordinance, or rite of any church. The individual who walks in the cathedral of the forest and bows and prays to the Savior, acknowledging and repenting of his sin becomes a priest. No church needed. The thief on the cross, for example - the Savior called out to him and saved him just as he does the person in the forest. The church adds teaching, worship, fellowship, ministry. That is it. Nothing else. Of course if a person belongs to a church and makes commitments and gains knowledge of other different aspects of the Christian life that the particular church emphasizes, he or she may wash feet, go to the temple, tithe, teach, minister, or become a conscientious objector. That is all wonderful, but it is not salvific. This is what I believe, I am not preaching or evangelizing anyone on this board to agree with me. I am in essence talking to myself out loud. Today is Three Kings Day here in Mexico. It is a special day, especially for the children. It will be celebrated by churches that celebrate Epiphany. It will be ignored in other churches. That is the way it is. Different churches add different things to the Christian life. That is their purpose. We're good. I appreciate you sharing your perspective. Again, a lot of this comes down to a matter of presumptions. The lens through which we read scriptures, discuss concepts, etc. Our approach to questions of priesthood authority, church structure, governance, etc. differ quite a bit, but we have still ended up focusing on the same day-to-day need to believe in Christ, serve our fellow man, repent of our sins, and so on. I'm glad of that. Quote Third, that many of my friends in the Catholic and LDS Church don't, can't, and won't agree with what I have written. That is ok with me. It would be silly for it not to be. I am realizing that it is not the disagreement that bothers me. It is the "better," the "more," the "only" that bothers me. Especially the "only." Alas, there is no way around it. The Church has worked hard, and in many ways succeeded, in its ecumenical efforts. But those efforts are not unlimited. We reserve for ourselves the right and need to maintain some boundaries, some differentiations. So we are fine with the Catholics not recognizing our baptisms (even though they recognize baptisms performed in other faiths), because we don't recognize theirs, either. In the end, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not have very many exclusivistic truth claims. To the extent it does, they pretty much all relate to priesthood authority. Living prophets and apostles, an open canon, saving ordinances, temple work, and so on are all predicated on an exclusive claim to authority. Quote It seems to me that before the 1920's the Church's position was a bit more hard line. "Only" really meant "Only." Today it seems that for whatever reason the Church is moderating its perspective a bit to where "only" leans toward "more." I think we have become less provincial, and more ecumenical. Hence more emphasis on shared values of service, charity, morality, and so on. We are nowhere near the sole source of such teachings or behaviors. Nevertheless, "only" in terms of priesthood authority remains very much "only." Quote That is my reading, I don't expect many to agree with me. It is kind of like how I read the changes in LDS writing about the apostasy. It seems to have moderated over time. For many of you the Church is where it is at. For those of you who are LDS, the LDS Church is the "only" place it is at. d The Great Apostasy was not the loss of all revealed light and knowledge, or the loss of all goodness and decenty on the earth. It was, instead, the loss of priesthood authority, and the "downstream" consequences thereof. Quote Fourth, we realize full well that we are attending a LDS ward. That is our choice. We have no expectation that anyone will change or temper their message/testimony because we are there. It is good for us to be there. It is always good to expand your horizons and learn what other folks think and believe. Right now it is our choice to stay or go. Some day they may tell us to go. Who knows? Thanks to all. I hope none of us ever tell you to go. That would very much contravene what we are supposed to do. I hope you stay. Thanks, -Smac Edited January 6, 2020 by smac97 2
pogi Posted January 6, 2020 Posted January 6, 2020 1 hour ago, Navidad said: Lots to think about there. Not sure I understand the distinction between an invisible church and a visible church. Perhaps the different place I am in is that I do not believe in salvific ordinances/sacraments. Therefore the mode, method, and manner of baptism is not essential to me. The communion sacrament is an ordinance of remembrance according to Christ. It is not salvific either. Marriage, foot washing, ordination, and many other ordinances have differing meanings in differing Christian groups You are right that different groups view these ordinances and their meaning in different ways. Which we obviously see as hugely problematic in denominational Christianity. For example, you state that communion/sacrament is only an ordinance of remembrance. For us, I am sure you are aware, it is so much more than that. The central purpose of all ordinances, and something that is not being discussed much here, is covenant making. Without the binding effect of covenants, ordinances would be as you suggest - empty, in terms of salvific efficasy and power. We are a covenant people only in and through the ordinances of the priesthood. We believe that it is through making and keeping covenants with God that salvation is obtained. God sets the terms of the covenant. God's people are a covenant people. Quote I the Lord am bound when ye do what I say, but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise (D&C 82:10) 3 hours ago, Navidad said: The Church of Christ universal is the aggregate of the called-out ones (ecclesia) who name Christ as their Lord and Savior regardless of subgroup affiliation. We also believe that many are called -out ones...but few are chosen In Mormonism, what you are describing is the Church of the Firstborn (which I wont get into here). Many believe in that concept of universal aggregate of believers - but it is more broad than your definition and includes non-Christians who follow their inner light of Christ. The chosen ones are those who make and keep covenants through proper priesthood channels. God does not accept contradicting ordinances and covenants. For Him, there is only one Way, that is through Jesus Christ by covenant. 3
Navidad Posted January 6, 2020 Posted January 6, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, pogi said: You are right that different groups view these ordinances and their meaning in different ways. Which we obviously see as hugely problematic in denominational Christianity. For example, you state that communion/sacrament is only an ordinance of remembrance. For us, I am sure you are aware, it is so much more than that. The central purpose of all ordinances, and something that is not being discussed much here, is covenant making. Without the binding effect of covenants, ordinances would be as you suggest - empty, in terms of salvific efficasy and power. We are a covenant people only in and through the ordinances of the priesthood. We believe that it is through making and keeping covenants with God that salvation is obtained. God sets the terms of the covenant. God's people are a covenant people. We also believe that many are called -out ones...but few are chosen In Mormonism, what you are describing is the Church of the Firstborn (which I wont get into here). Many believe in that concept of universal aggregate of believers - but it is more broad than your definition and includes non-Christians who follow their inner light of Christ. The chosen ones are those who make and keep covenants through proper priesthood channels. God does not accept contradicting ordinances and covenants. For Him, there is only one Way, that is through Jesus Christ by covenant. When I was a little boy in Sunday School we used to say "many are cold...but few are frozen!" So you are a Calvinist Mormon!🙄 I didn't know there was such a thing! Ha! This year I will be speaking twice on post-manifesto mormon polygamy with a focus on the Mexican Mormon colonies. I will be speaking about both Church of the Firstborn groups founded by different LeBarons. I wish I could meet some of you at one of these events. It would be an honor. I will also be speaking at BYU and in SLC this year! I promise not to wear my cowboy hat! Edited January 6, 2020 by Navidad
Tacenda Posted January 6, 2020 Posted January 6, 2020 9 minutes ago, Navidad said: When I was a little boy in Sunday School we used to say "many are cold...but few are frozen!" So you are a Calvinist Mormon!🙄 I didn't know there was such a thing! Ha! This year I will be speaking twice on post-manifesto mormon polygamy with a focus on the Mexican Mormon colonies. I will be speaking about both Church of the Firstborn groups founded by different LeBarons. I wish I could meet some of you at one of these events. It would be an honor. I will also be speaking at BYU and in SLC this year! I promise not to wear my cowboy hat! I would love to hear you speak, I live just outside of SLC, so it would be very easy for me to attend. Do you have a website, or schedule of your speaking engagements?
Navidad Posted January 6, 2020 Posted January 6, 2020 5 hours ago, Tacenda said: On the third point, when the LDS say "only" and they lose their testimony in the church, they also lose their testimony in the Saviour and become Atheist or agnostic. Unlike those that didn't have an allegiance to a brick and mortar church or institution, but have their testimony entirely in a Saviour no matter what religion they are in. I was in a large plenary session in SLC last June. The speaker gave statistics on what happens when members leave the LDS church. I thought it was interesting and sad how many seem to lose all faith altogether. I had no idea that was a trend prior to that meeting.
Meadowchik Posted January 6, 2020 Posted January 6, 2020 On 1/3/2020 at 11:59 PM, Hamba Tuhan said: Good luck with your battle. Based on my experiences with God to date, it's not one I wish to join. I think you missed the point completely.
pogi Posted January 6, 2020 Posted January 6, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Navidad said: When I was a little boy in Sunday School we used to say "many are cold...but few are frozen!" So you are a Calvinist Mormon!🙄 I didn't know there was such a thing! Ha! This year I will be speaking twice on post-manifesto mormon polygamy with a focus on the Mexican Mormon colonies. I will be speaking about both Church of the Firstborn groups founded by different LeBarons. I wish I could meet some of you at one of these events. It would be an honor. I will also be speaking at BYU and in SLC this year! It would be an honor to attend one of your events. Let me know when and where in SLC and I will be sure and be there. I have been called a lot of things, but "Calvinist" is not one of them. We obviously interpret that passage different. Also, by "Church of the Firstborn", I meant something entirely different from the the LeBaron groups. 1 hour ago, Navidad said: I promise not to wear my cowboy hat! That actually disappoints me Edited January 6, 2020 by pogi
Navidad Posted January 6, 2020 Posted January 6, 2020 32 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I would love to hear you speak, I live just outside of SLC, so it would be very easy for me to attend. Do you have a website, or schedule of your speaking engagements? Thanks. I think the one that will be the most fun is on August 5. My wife and I will both be speaking and discussing with folks about the joys and challenges of being faithful non-members in an LDS ward. That meeting is in SLC. I am not sure where yet. The BYU meeting will be about how to do character/values education in public schools. That meeting is still pending the coordinator getting funding from some institute on campus. I will be putting a calendar together on my website in a couple of weeks.
Recommended Posts