The Work of Salvation and Exaltation.

[Ahab]

Just now, Sunslight said:

Spiritual Death is defined as being dead unto the things of the spirit.

Defining death as being dead is not very helpful or useful.  What do you think it means to be dead?  I believe death is a separation.  When we die a mortal death our spirit separates from our mortal body.  When we die a spiritual death our spirit separates from God.

Now I ask again, which person do you think of when you think of being separated from God?

Are you referring to being separated from our Father in heaven?  (that would mean no Celestial glory)

Or separated from Jesus Christ? (that would mean no Celestial or Terrestrial glory)

Or separated from the Holy  Spirit?  (that would mean no Celestial or Terrestrial or Telestial glory)

Or separated from all 3 of them? (that would be what we call outer darkness, no end to being separated from any or all of the 3 persons we normally associate with or refer to by the name of "God")

Just now, Sunslight said:

We know that Christ saves all those who aren't sons of perdition from eternal spiritual death.

Which means that all those except the sons of Perdition will be able to freely associate or live with at least 1 of the 3 persons we refer to as God, and those 3 persons are the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ, and our Father in heaven.

Just now, Sunslight said:

It's not a matter of degree so much at that point of judgment because all of those Christ saves will be saved from spiritual death.

It is a matter of whether or not we are or will be separated from any of the persons we refer to as God.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

I didn't say that.  Just not total salvation.  Almost all of us will be saved, to some degree.  It's just that not all of us will be saved totally, or totally saved.

These pesky words keep getting in our way! 😀 I have to remember that. When I use the term the Mormon baptismal font, I am suggesting a typology for baptism and ordinance. Also when I use the word salvation, I am using it in my understanding of it. It is important to say that. Salvation for me is what happens at a point in time (it is an aorist experience - sanctification is a present tense experience) when I trust in the atonement of Christ as sufficient to forgive my sin and for the Father to declare me positionally righteous through that same blood. After that point when the Father sees me, He sees the shed blood of His son and he declares me righteous even though I am not. Then, my faith in the atonement of Christ fulfills the promise of scripture that I will inherit eternal life with the Father in heaven (John 17:3; John 14:6, 23; Rev 21: 1-27). That is our covenant. My part is to confess, faith, and believe in the Son and in the plan. God's part is to reckon me forgiven and welcome me to eternity with Him. Baptists tend to be eternal security (once saved - always saved). Mennonites are more Arminian (one must live the life and can risk losing salvation by a return to sin). I am a little of both. My study of theology teaches me I don't have to always view things as "this" or "that," especially when it is something I will have to wait till I pierce the veil to know for sure.

I do not believe any ordinance is necessary to have a covenant with God to ensure eternity with Him, learning and growing and continuing sanctification - to be saved. I rarely hear my LDS friends use the word sanctification. That is fine, but it is vital to my understanding of my eternal life and destiny in heaven where I will continue to worship, learn, and become more like Christ for eternity.

One of the LDS beliefs I have put on hold is that of pre-mortal existence. I don't understand it, nor can I conceive (pun intended) of it. I have rejected the LDS belief that it is the only true and living church, so I don't believe I will have to adopt or agree to any prior proxy work regarding any unique or specific LDS ordinances to achieve eternal life with the Father. I also have rejected the concept of a total apostasy as used by Talmage and many others. I reject that Joseph Smith had to restore the Christian church. There were people restoring it long before my LDS friends. Oh, That would in part be the Anabaptists or Mennonites! I hope my LDS friends know that John Smyth founded the Baptist church long before, Joseph Smith founded the LDS church. Both the former and latter Smi(y)ths had the help of the Mennonites! Without eternal life with the Father, there is no heaven. I would guess the vast majority of LDS "converts" at the time of their baptism know nothing about proxy work and subsequently having to agree that the LDS church is the only true and living church on earth approved by God. Neither of those are mentioned in the baptismal questions.

So there you have it - no such thing as partial or non-total salvation or being saved to some degree. All of us are totally saved or not saved at all. Having said that I absolutely believe in an inclusivist view of God's mercy. It is wide. Wider than I might comprehend. I do not know how God via Christ will judge each person's eternal destiny. I know the Bible puts the emphasis on faith. I also know from my mission in Africa that folks are in very different places regarding their readiness to faith (I believe it is most correctly understood as a verb). I will happily leave that to God. I think he and Christ already have that all worked out. It is simply one of the many things that He hasn't shared with us. He is loving and He is righteous. Somehow I am confident He will balance those two in a way that will surprise all of us. 

 

[Sunslight]

20 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Defining death as being dead is not very helpful or useful.  What do you think it means to be dead?  I believe death is a separation.  When we die a mortal death our spirit separates from our mortal body.  When we die a spiritual death our spirit separates from God.

Now I ask again, which person do you think of when you think of being separated from God?

Are you referring to being separated from our Father in heaven?  (that would mean no Celestial glory)

Or separated from Jesus Christ? (that would mean no Celestial or Terrestrial glory)

Or separated from the Holy  Spirit?  (that would mean no Celestial or Terrestrial or Telestial glory)

Or separated from all 3 of them? (that would be what we call outer darkness, no end to being separated from any or all of the 3 persons we normally associate with or refer to by the name of "God")

Which means that all those except the sons of Perdition will be able to freely associate or live with at least 1 of the 3 persons we refer to as God, and those 3 persons are the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ, and our Father in heaven.

It is a matter of whether or not we are or will be separated from any of the persons we refer to as God.

Semantics come into play. Properly defining death is important. Death is not merely defined as separation. It is not proper to say infants are spiritually dead. Being spiritually dead means to be dead or unresponsive to the spirit/ godliness. We must repent and be redeemed from that spiritual death that we inflict on ourselves as we choose to not follow the spirit any more.

[CV75]

33 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

Salvation means being saved from physical and spiritual death. It's pretty exclusive in this.

Absolutely. Saved from one, the other, or both, fully or in degrees.

[Sunslight]

20 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Absolutely. Saved from one, the other, or both, fully or in degrees.

The scriptures do not separate them though and neither in degrees either.

[Ahab]

10 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

Semantics come into play. Properly defining death is important. Death is not merely defined as separation.

Death is a separation, though, and I think it is the main point to keep in mind even if expounding some more on what death is all about..  

10 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

It is not proper to say infants are spiritually dead.

Their spirit is still separated from the physical presence of the Spirit of God, aka the Holy Spirit, and Jesus Christ, and our Father in heaven.  Infants have no sin because of our Lord's atonement but that is not the same thing as saying they are in the physical presence of God or able to communicate with him on his level.

10 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

Being spiritually dead means to be dead or unresponsive to the spirit/ godliness.

Yes, because spirits when separated are not in the same physical place and not communicating on the same intellectual level.  Glory is all about intelligence and our spirit is our mind/intellect, so we must be able to receive the intelligence someone is trying to share with us  otherwise we just do not get it. Like hearing about someone else saying something but not being physically there or able to understand what that person is saying.  I believe we can have God with us even when we are not in the same physical places, but we must at least be able to communicate and receive communications from someone to be in the same place intellectually/spiritually.

10 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

We must repent and be redeemed from that spiritual death that we inflict on ourselves as we choose to not follow the spirit any more.

We are all able to when given enough help.  Sometimes we refuse help because we don't think we need it or see it as necessary and we still must choose to do what is required from us when receiving help instead of thinking God is going to automatically do everything for us.

It is baffling sometimes when I see it.  Even when someone seems to be saying they want some help at understanding or doing something, they will sometimes refuse to accept help when it is offered because they do not see that help as being helpful.  

The Messiah came here in person to save all of the Jews from their sins, right?  And still many of them refuse to believe he came here among them.. that he was physically here... and that he had the words of eternal life.  They just couldn't see, even when he was here with them.

Anyway, not that I'm going to convince you of anything.  That's not my mission here.  I am just trying to explain things as I understand them.  If you get it and agree with it, fine.  If you don't then that is fine with me too.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

I didn't say that.  Just not total salvation.  Almost all of us will be saved, to some degree.  It's just that not all of us will be saved totally, or totally saved.

That makes it totally ambiguous. We should just differentiate between salvation as being saved from spiritual and physical death through Resurrection, and exaltation. Those are two different stages of progression. 

When we lump them together it causes confusion as the very existence of this thread illustrates

If we stop using the same word for two stages of progression it would clarify everything for non-members and members who are not well informed.

I suppose that the other stages of telestial and terrestrial are also commonly confused.

When sectarian Christians are talking about salvation they only mean our first stage however, which we see as a free gift.

Our belief is that Broadly speaking everyone who acknowledges Jesus Christ as their savior will go to "heaven" in at least the terrestrial or telestial or the lower parts of  the celestial Kingdom. But they do not accept those differences in crowns of Glory, so they don't even acknowledge that. Most Protestants do acknowledge different "crowns of Glory", though, as different Rewards.

But exaltation is a totally different category meaning that we can become gods. We used to demphasize that, but that has always been taught.

[Ahab]

22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

That makes it totally ambiguous. We should just differentiate between salvation as being saved from spiritual and physical death through Resurrection, and exaltation. Those are two different stages of progression. 

When we lump them together it causes confusion as the very existence of this thread illustrates

If we stop using the same word for two stages of progression it would clarify everything for non-members and members who are not well informed.

I suppose that the other stages of telestial and terrestrial are also commonly confused.

When sectarian Christians are talking about salvation they only mean our first stage however, which we see as a free gift.

Our belief is that Broadly speaking everyone who acknowledges Jesus Christ as their savior will go to "heaven" in at least the terrestrial or telestial or the lower parts of  the celestial Kingdom. But they do not accept those differences in crowns of Glory, so they don't even acknowledge that. Most Protestants do acknowledge different "crowns of Glory", though, as different Rewards.

But exaltation is a totally different category meaning that we can become gods. We used to demphasize that, but that has always been taught.

My preference would be to use the word salvation only when referring to being able to return to the presence of our Father in heaven, since we were with him before we came down here and that's who I hope to be able to be with when all of this is over.

Anything less than that, such as being able to be with other people who may also be wonderful people, would still be a good thing but not quite up to par with what I am expecting when I talk about being able to return to heaven. 

But the better the people who we can live with, the better off we'll be, I think.  I just don't want to have no choice but to live with the very worst of people, even if they are all working on getting better.  Visiting, sure, but living with them forever, eh, that's not what I really want.

Edited March 3, 2020 by Ahab

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

I guess I don't see what I have said as a contradiction although I understand what you are saying. I do not believe that the gospel of salvation is complicated, although much surrounding it is. You are incorrect that my position is "Belief in Jesus Christ is all you need to be saved." In fact that is directly contrary to what I believe. Scripture says the demons believe, doesn't it? That can't therefore be all that is necessary. Perhaps it will be easier if I say what I don't believe. I don't believe baptism is necessary for salvation. I believe baptism is a testimony or type of the crucified, buried, and risen Christ. I affirm my belief in that, my repentance, and my commitment to live my life as a testimony to Him when I am baptized. Repentance, complete with turning around comes first. I don't believe you need to believe in the trinity to be saved. Hence I have no problem with my LDS, Pentecostal, or other friends who don't believe in the trinity. Creeds mean nothing to me. So I understand I don't fit the typical LDS straw man of the trinitarian, creedal Protestant that you all love to rail about. 

I do bemoan the fact that there isn't more teaching in the LDS ward. I regret it too. I long to be taught. I don't deny that. That is why I come here. I know of nowhere else to go, except to my own library. The stake does no teaching. It seems an organizational and resource structure. There are no revivals, Bible or BOM for that matter conferences where for hours we are taught line by line. Does that happen anywhere in the LDS structure? I grew up with that. For ten weeks every summer as a child and early teen I attended Bible conferences (teaching conferences) at various Bible conference centers. So yes, I miss that now. Learning Spiritual truths is how I grow. Again, I miss that. I don't deny that. The absence of that certainly doesn't lead me to the same conclusion, as someone else stated that LDS Christians are more theologically sophisticated (my term) than non-LDS Christians. 

I don't know what you are missing. In some ways I think your preconceptions about non-LDS Christians get in your way. LDS folks (collectively) seem very hesitant to let them go. They are useful straw men. I understand that. They help you differentiate, especially since your culture is so homogeneic. The rest of the Christian family in the world is truly quite diverse. 

Understanding the Bible, the BOM, the D&C, and the POGP is not simple. The complexity of Christian beliefs (LDS and otherwise) evidences that. I agree with whoever said here this morning that revelation requires interpretation. My goodness, I am reading book after book right now about plural marriage in the church. There are so many interpretations of the 1890 Manifesto and the 1904 add-on by Joseph F. Smith. That is all heavy lifting. I have always enjoyed systematic theology since I was a freshman in college fifty-three years ago. It helps me so much to organize my study. It teaches me what to look for in understanding parables, prophecy, history, typologies, poetry, etc. All of the four scriptures cited have all of these in one way or another. I believe the disregard for theology in the LDS church has perpetrated the likes of differing claims of the LDS fundamentalists, of confusion and controversy over Taylor's 1886 revelation, Woodruff's 1880 wilderness revelation, of understanding the meaning of Smith's 1904 statement, supporting Kimball's The Miracle of Forgiveness, and even Roberts' Doctrine of the Church. I could name many more. Read five books by LDS folks on the Great Apostasy and you will get six different nuances related to it. It is all complex. Prophetic scriptures are a real challenge, aren't they? I am going on too long again. Sorry. I appreciate your kindness and interest in me. I am sorry I come across as a contradiction. Perhaps I am a contradiction, and then also perhaps I am a contradiction to your apriori assumptions about non-LDS Christians. 

I apologize for getting your beliefs wrong, but we don't talk about that very much.

Perhaps you should check out "education week" which is held at BYU in the summer

From my perspective the church teaches the church's point of view on everything, as it should. There is certainly enough "diversity" from the world's point of view,  that we need at least one channel devoted to what the church actually teaches.

If we want to present different ideas we don't do them at church because that is the church's time. I have been trained in philosophy and I would not expect Bertrand Russell to teach about Wittgenstein, much less teach these views at church.

 We have numerous libraries and blogs opposing and advocating church positions, but that is for outside of church. 

It is odd to me that a church would present doctrines which are not their own, in fact I cannot conceive of why they would do that.

Also our clergy does not consist of Scholars. They are unpaid and are ordinary folks who are called to their positions. That in itself is a good reason for them not to stray from church approved materials.

They are not experts as you are.

They have not been trained in the ministry.

They have not taken courses in the Bible.

They are as simple as the twelve fisherman which Jesus picked to be his apostles, and knew that they could pull it off.

There should never be nor will there be and LDS systematic theology, because we surrender all of that to hermeneutics as directed by the spirit. No other church does that. Everyone is so embroiled in their own Doctrine that they do not leave room for the spirit

I am working right now on a lengthy look at how philosophy of language applies to scripture, from an anti-metaphysicical point of view, examining views from Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Rorty, and others. It might be seen as a systematic approach to the hermeneutics of scripture as literature,  but in no way a systematic theology. If the Lord gives me enough time to do so maybe something will become of it or maybe not.

At any rate anything like that is certainly not appropriate fodder for Sunday School.

 

Edited March 3, 2020 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Sunslight said:

The scriptures do not separate them though and neither in degrees either.

Oh yes they do and I will refer you to other threads for the sake of efficiency.

[Sunslight]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

Death is a separation, though, and I think it is the main point to keep in mind even if expounding some more on what death is all about..  

Their spirit is still separated from the physical presence of the Spirit of God, aka the Holy Spirit, and Jesus Christ, and our Father in heaven.  Infants have no sin because of our Lord's atonement but that is not the same thing as saying they are in the physical presence of God or able to communicate with him on his level.

Yes, because spirits when separated are not in the same physical place and not communicating on the same intellectual level.  Glory is all about intelligence and our spirit is our mind/intellect, so we must be able to receive the intelligence someone is trying to share with us  otherwise we just do not get it. Like hearing about someone else saying something but not being physically there or able to understand what that person is saying.  I believe we can have God with us even when we are not in the same physical places, but we must at least be able to communicate and receive communications from someone to be in the same place intellectually/spiritually.

We are all able to when given enough help.  Sometimes we refuse help because we don't think we need it or see it as necessary and we still must choose to do what is required from us when receiving help instead of thinking God is going to automatically do everything for us.

It is baffling sometimes when I see it.  Even when someone seems to be saying they want some help at understanding or doing something, they will sometimes refuse to accept help when it is offered because they do not see that help as being helpful.  

The Messiah came here in person to save all of the Jews from their sins, right?  And still many of them refuse to believe he came here among them.. that he was physically here... and that he had the words of eternal life.  They just couldn't see, even when he was here with them.

Anyway, not that I'm going to convince you of anything.  That's not my mission here.  I am just trying to explain things as I understand them.  If you get it and agree with it, fine.  If you don't then that is fine with me too.

To be spiritually dead is being dead to all good works. In the scriptures it is called our spiritual fall. It is something we must repent of. As we do we become born again. That means we become alive again to the spirit. The separation of God is an affect of spiritual death but not the definition itself. Another affect of spiritual death is anguish. But anguish itself is not the definition of spiritual death.

[Sunslight]

41 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Oh yes they do and I will refer you to other threads for the sake of efficiency.

Refer me to scriptures. Can you show me where salvation is consistently taught as different things?

[Navidad]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It is odd to me that a church would present doctrines which are not their own, in fact I cannot conceive of why they would do that.

This is such a key point you have brought up. When I was a pastor I wanted to foster a well-educated congregation. If I were teaching about baptism from either the pulpit or lectern I would teach my folks the entire range of beliefs about baptism that are taught in the broader Christian community and even those in the non-Christian world, as baptism is not a concept limited to Christianity. I would teach about basic baptism scriptures and how those are interpreted by reformed folk, Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox, Pentecostal, Mormons, and others. I would probably wrap up with what we believe and why. It would take at least six weeks to do this. I would do it in a Sunday evening Bible study, in Sunday School, in Wednesday night prayer meeting, or perhaps a Thursday night Bible Study. I have devoted six weeks of such study in the past to what Mormons believe and brought in the local ward bishop or some missionaries. I am ashamed however that I did not know more or better back then. This is the kind of intense study and interest in other faiths that I miss. I am learning more that my LDS friends simply have no interest in learning about other beliefs and faiths. Perhaps it is because they are so confident they have the truth, they cannot conceive of wasting time learning other perspectives. My job as pastor was never to tell my flock what to believe, but to explain (teach) all the interpretations and why we believe the one or two or even three interpretations that might be found in our faith. Thanks for opening my eyes to this significant difference in our concept of ministry and teaching 

Edited March 3, 2020 by Navidad

[Ahab]

14 hours ago, Sunslight said:

To be spiritually dead is being dead to all good works. In the scriptures it is called our spiritual fall. It is something we must repent of. As we do we become born again. That means we become alive again to the spirit. The separation of God is an affect of spiritual death but not the definition itself. Another affect of spiritual death is anguish. But anguish itself is not the definition of spiritual death.

You're talking in circles while basically saying the same things that I have been saying.  When we die spiritually, which is often referred to as spiritual death, then our spirit is dead.  Notice I haven't said much that is useful or informative about what it means to die a spiritual death yet. So now someone who doesn't know what spiritual death is could reasonably ask what does it mean when someone's spirit dies.  They're still getting around, somehow still moving from some point A to some other point B.  They're still what some people would call "alive".  So what does it mean when someone dies a spiritual death or is in the state of being spiritually dead, some reasonable fellow might wonder.  It means that person's spirit is not communicating with the spirit of our Father in heaven.  There is a separation there.  A disconnect.  And it isn't because that person's spirit doesn't exist anymore. And it isn't because our Father is unwilling to communicate with that person's spirit, either.  So somehow the person whose spirit is dead has somehow separated from communicating with the spirit of our Father in heaven.  I think of it as if the person whose spirit is dead has turned on some kind of Ignore feature, basically to try to tune out any communication with our Father in heaven.  It's not that the spiritually dead person can't communicate with our Father in heaven.  That person could if they wanted to and put in the effort required.  But for some reason they have decided they don't want to, that they're not really interested in getting any thoughts or feelings from our Father in heaven through any means our Father might use to communicate with them.  And it has the effect of making them miserable, even though they were the one who decided they don't want to communicate with our Father in heaven.  (if you haven't caught on yet I'm using new English where we use "they" instead of he or she now).

Anyway, just more of the same thing that I have bee saying and what you seem to be saying too now.  Death itself is merely a separation and not an end to existence.  When a spirit dies it still exists, and when a mortal person dies their spirit separates from their mortal body.

 

[Sunslight]

4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

You're talking in circles while basically saying the same things that I have been saying.  When we die spiritually, which is often referred to as spiritual death, then our spirit is dead.  Notice I haven't said much that is useful or informative about what it means to die a spiritual death yet. So now someone who doesn't know what spiritual death is could reasonably ask what does it mean when someone's spirit dies.  They're still getting around, somehow still moving from some point A to some other point B.  They're still what some people would call "alive".  So what does it mean when someone dies a spiritual death or is in the state of being spiritually dead, some reasonable fellow might wonder.  It means that person's spirit is not communicating with the spirit of our Father in heaven.  There is a separation there.  A disconnect.  And it isn't because that person's spirit doesn't exist anymore. And it isn't because our Father is unwilling to communicate with that person's spirit, either.  So somehow the person whose spirit is dead has somehow separated from communicating with the spirit of our Father in heaven.  I think of it as if the person whose spirit is dead has turned on some kind of Ignore feature, basically to try to tune out any communication with our Father in heaven.  It's not that the spiritually dead person can't communicate with our Father in heaven.  That person could if they wanted to and put in the effort required.  But for some reason they have decided they don't want to, that they're not really interested in getting any thoughts or feelings from our Father in heaven through any means our Father might use to communicate with them.  And it has the effect of making them miserable, even though they were the one who decided they don't want to communicate with our Father in heaven.  (if you haven't caught on yet I'm using new English where we use "they" instead of he or she now).

Anyway, just more of the same thing that I have bee saying and what you seem to be saying too now.  Death itself is merely a separation and not an end to existence.  When a spirit dies it still exists, and when a mortal person dies their spirit separates from their mortal body.

 

I agree with what you are saying. Often times we confuse things by merely calling spiritual death a separation and in so doing state such doctrinal mistakes like teaching that we spiritually die when we are born here on earth because we leave heaven and are "separated". That's a doctrinal mistake. That's why I shy away from the "separation" aspect because it leads to false teachings. 

[mfbukowski]

37 minutes ago, Navidad said:

My job as pastor was never to tell my flock what to believe, but to explain (teach) all the interpretations and why we believe the one or two or even three interpretations that might be found in our faith. Thanks for opening my eyes to this significant difference in our concept of ministry and teaching 

From our point of view I am not sure that teaching comparative religion is the job of a pastor.

Did you restrict your teaching to Christianity? If your job was to teach comparative interpretation of scripture did you include other religions?  Scriptures other than the Bible?

It's interesting.

When I was a bishop my job as I saw it was to feed my flock and teach them why they came to our church as opposed to other churches, as a kind of missionary Outreach if nothing else.

We always had non-members in our Ward who were studying the church.

They came to learn what we believed, not what others believe. I don't think I have ever seen another pastor who teaches what others believe.

And on the other hand I know that one can never teach another point of view well.  If one wants to learn Buddhism, one goes to a Buddhist, if one wants to learn Lutheranism one goes to a Lutheran.

I just don't get it.

Edited March 3, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I am not sure that teaching comparative religion is the job of a pastor.

Even if it were a pastor's job I don't have a high degree of confidence that they are doing it right.  I think more often than not they are poisoning wells and saying things which are true are not true, or vice versa. 

You know how some pastors are or have been.  Many were Joseph Smith's worst enemies and they didn't really seem to care that he was telling the truth.

 

[Ahab]

17 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

I agree with what you are saying. Often times we confuse things by merely calling spiritual death a separation and in so doing state such doctrinal mistakes like teaching that we spiritually die when we are born here on earth because we leave heaven and are "separated". That's a doctrinal mistake. That's why I shy away from the "separation" aspect because it leads to false teachings. 

I would rather clarify further than ignore teaching something that is true.  And I am familiar with the doctrinal error you are talking about, usually from people who don't realize the atonement of Jesus Christ absolves little children of any sin and doesn't hold them accountable for their actions until they are 8 years old.  If the atonement didn't cover them they would be spiritually dead, though.  We all would be spiritually dead if it were not for the atonement of Jesus Christ.  Because we do have that, though, and because of the fact that it was in effect even in the beginning before any of us came down here to live on this planet, we do have a means of communicating with our Father in heaven and nobody is spiritually dead unless they want to be. But those who want to be will still feel miserable.  We need what we need to feel good.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

From our point of view I am not sure that teaching comparative religion is the job of a pastor.

Did you restrict your teaching to Christianity? If your job was to teach comparative interpretation of scripture did you include other religions?  Scriptures other than the Bible?

It's interesting.

When I was a bishop my job as I saw it was to feed my flock and teach them why they came to our church as opposed to other churches, as a kind of missionary Outreach if nothing else.

We always had non-members in our Ward who were studying the church.

They came to learn what we believed, not what others believe. I don't think I have ever seen another pastor who teaches what others believe.

And on the other hand I know that one can never teach another point of view well.  If one wants to learn Buddhism, one goes to a Buddhist, if one wants to learn Lutheranism one goes to a Lutheran.

I just don't get it.

Yes, I taught a wide range of beliefs. My responsibility as pastor-teacher (my model I learned in seminary) was to do just that. Outside of the pulpit I was the shepherd. In the pulpit I was the teacher. I was not an evangelist; I was a teacher. I understand that you don't get it. I didn't get it until I realized that you don't get it. This is really quite eye-opening for me.

I believe that you as a a bishop only taught the LDS faith. You operate from an entirely different model and paradigm than I did and do. I am not criticizing it in any way. I am simply trying to help you to understand me and why I say I miss the teaching I was used to in the past. I can only reiterate that I wanted to educate not indoctrinate my congregation. The important thing was to understand the tenets of Christianity inclusive of how they are found in other faith groups with whom my parishioners worked, went to school, and lived. The church is an island. The world is ---- well, the world. Please remember that I have said a number of times, my first and foremost identity is as a Christian, second as an Evangelical (in its strict usage), and third as a Mennonite. If I joined the Mormon church, that wouldn't change. If the bishop insisted that change, then I simply wouldn't join the LDS church or any other group that insisted that I prioritize my membership in a group rather than my commitment to a faith (Christianity). I taught homiletics (preaching) for years. What I described in my earlier post is what I taught them to do. Yes, I brought in those from other faiths as well to explain to us what they believe and why. My folks were much better off for understanding that and can speak much better about their own faith when they understand others. 

I do find many erroneous comments on this forum, and some in the ward about non-LDS Christians and their churches. Why is this? Perhaps it is because LDS Christians are not taught about the reality of the other 99.3% of Christianity in all of its wonderful diversity. They carry forward tired old stereotypes because they know no better. They fail to understand the important distinctions between fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Pentecostal, and mainstream Christians. They paint all of non-LDS Christianity with the same brush. Do you really think that is a good thing?

Might not the lagging LDS church missionary efforts be more successful if the missionaries had a correct understanding of the faith of those to whom they are ministering, especially when one or two faiths dominate their locale? I can guarantee that the missionaries right here in our community would be much more successful (there have been no converts in years) if they understood the importance of the Virgin of Guadalupe to the folks here and thus could speak to that in their missionary efforts. In fact, the missionaries have now been pulled from our community by the Area Mission President. Partly this is because of fear for their safety and partly because of the lack of folks to teach. I understand the former, but not the latter. 

I don't ever claim to speak for LDS Christians in my teaching ministry. I do claim to speak about LDS Christians and LDS history. I do speak to LDS folks a number of times a year. It is a continuation of my ministry from my thirties. That is why I must learn all that I can. I have shed some of my old stereotypes by attending the ward. This forum has been a mixed bag for me. I am now, however almost every day learning something new . . . like this today.

I am also making an intensive effort to learn a bunch about the history of LDS and fundamentalist mormon polygamy. Fascinating stuff. In that I have learned a lot about the distinction that was and is made between individual priesthood authority and the church. That is really fascinating. When Presidents Woodruff, Taylor, Grant, and Smith along with their counselors and apostles were denying that the church was still performing and authorizing plural marriages from 1890 to 1910, their justification was that individual priesthood holders were taking it upon themselves to perform the marriages under the rubric of their own priesthood authority, not that of the church itself. This of course caused lots of misunderstandings among both the LDS and non-LDS folks and those who absolutely believed they were doing what they were doing under the authority of the brethren. Fascinating history! I enjoy the history of church in the 1850's and from 1885-1915 the most. Turbulent times. Sweeping changes were also going on in those exact same years in the LDS Christian community as well. 

You have taught me something very important this morning. I was especially receptive because I woke up thinking about the curiosity of the lack of interest in folks on this forum and in our ward in what fellow Christians believe. I just don't get that. So maybe we are even! 🙃 

[Ahab]

26 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Might not the lagging LDS church missionary efforts be more successful if the missionaries had a correct understanding of the faith of those to whom they are ministering, especially when one or two faiths dominate their locale?

Maybe, but I don't think it would matter much.  They'd still be sharing the truth with others, whatever those others believed, and those others would either accept the truth they offered or dismiss it as not what they believe is true.

What those others need to do is to somehow find out about what is true that is important for them to know, and having people who are willing to go to them and teach them those things is one of the best ways to try to share that knowledge with them.

Whether or not those others believe it or reject it is totally up to them, of course.

 

 

Edited March 3, 2020 by Ahab

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

Even if it were a pastor's job I don't have a high degree of confidence that they are doing it right.  I think more often than not they are poisoning wells and saying things which are true are not true, or vice versa. 

You know how some pastors are or have been.  Many were Joseph Smith's worst enemies and they didn't really seem to care that he was telling the truth.

 

Hmmm  I wonder if you would say the same thing about LDS bishops? Of course not. You don't think much of hundreds of thousands of men and women who have dedicated their lives to pastoral ministry, and faithful ministry to Christ and their congregations, do you? "You know how some pastors are or have been . . . ."   Hmmm.....no I don't; why not tell me more about how I am or how we are?  Methinks I have just read LDS bigotry at its worst. Is this something you have personally faced from a non-LDS pastor? If so, would you give me the name of the church and the pastor's name? I will personally engage him or her on how they treated you. Or something you have been taught from primary? Perhaps you remember it from your pre-1990 endowment? That is probably it. After all we are all in league with Lucifer aren't we?  Oh, the Church dropped that right? Maybe you haven't kept up?

I have been reading in the new handbook about the oath and covenant of the LDS priesthood holder (Chapter 26 if you care to read it) and about exercising "unrighteous dominion." Your reply seems to me to be such a case. In another post some time ago you indicated that you hold the priesthood. You have now bullied, mocked, and misrepresenting thousands of Godly men and women. It appears you are exhibiting none of the characteristics of the priesthood in D&C 121: 35-46. Those characteristics are remarkably similar to those found as the fruits of the Spirit which are remarkably absent from your reply I have quoted. I am not an LDS priesthood holder; we both know that, but I am "reproving you with sharpness" as your brother in Christ for what you said in the above quote. I will still love you so that you do not consider me your enemy as verse 43 admonishes. I am very disappointed, but of course you have no responsibility to me as a Christian brother; I am simply a liar and a well-poisoner!

[Ahab]

20 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hmmm  I wonder if you would say the same thing about LDS bishops? Of course not. You don't think much of hundreds of thousands of men and women who have dedicated their lives to pastoral ministry, and faithful ministry to Christ and their congregations, do you? "You know how some pastors are or have been . . . ."   Hmmm.....no I don't; why not tell me more about how I am or how we are?  Methinks I have just read LDS bigotry at its worst. Is this something you have personally faced from a non-LDS pastor? If so, would you give me the name of the church and the pastor's name? I will personally engage him or her on how they treated you. Or something you have been taught from primary? Perhaps you remember it from your pre-1990 endowment? That is probably it. After all we are all in league with Lucifer aren't we?  Oh, the Church dropped that right? Maybe you haven't kept up?

I have been reading in the new handbook about the oath and covenant of the LDS priesthood holder (Chapter 26 if you care to read it) and about exercising "unrighteous dominion." Your reply seems to me to be such a case. In another post some time ago you indicated that you hold the priesthood. You have now bullied, mocked, and misrepresenting thousands of Godly men and women. It appears you are exhibiting none of the characteristics of the priesthood in D&C 121: 35-46. Those characteristics are remarkably similar to those found as the fruits of the Spirit which are remarkably absent from your reply I have quoted. I am not an LDS priesthood holder; we both know that, but I am "reproving you with sharpness" as your brother in Christ for what you said in the above quote. I will still love you so that you do not consider me your enemy as verse 43 admonishes. I am very disappointed, but of course you have no responsibility to me as a Christian brother; I am simply a liar and a well-poisoner!

Trying to put me in a defensive posture now?  I was simply sharing what I think based on what I have seen and I would say the "pastoral" attitude and behavior I have seen is more the rule than an exceptional case, based on what I have seen.

It often starts with something like: Mormons believe [so and so] and I'm going to explain to you how that is wrong or not what you should believe"  What follows that is often either a misrepresentation of what we actually believe or just their own reasoning, which is what I would say is actually wrong.

Sometimes they speak in a polite tone of voice but I have seen them get rather riled up while either misrepresenting our beliefs or simply stating their own beliefs, and sometimes when they do share what we believe they do it in a tone that reflects their disapproval, which is not at all how we share or would share our beliefs with others when we do.

From you I often get "that is not what I believe" after I have shared what I believe with you while you then go on to try to share more about what you believe.  Even though I didn't say anything about being interested in what you believe. I was simply sharing what I believe with you.  Seldom any questions from you to follow up to try to get at more of what I was talking about.  Just the "i don't believe that" and then you just going on to share whatever it is you believe.

And yes, as I said, sometimes you say things are true that I would not say are true, and sometimes you say things are not true when I know and say they are true... well, strike that, you usually just say you don' t believe it rather than saying it's not true, but it amounts to about the same thing. The only real difference here is that this is a discussion board where we can talk back and forth with each other, whereas when a pastor gets up in front of a congregation to share what thinks he isn't opening his remarks up to any comments and is up there to share what he thinks.  Even on matters that he does not believe, when talking about what other people believe.  It is not as if everything a pastor says is the word of God.  They seem to usually act like it is, but often what they are saying is simply their own opinion.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

. If I joined the Mormon church, that wouldn't change. If the bishop insisted that change, then I simply wouldn't join the LDS church or any other group that insisted that I prioritize my membership in a group rather than my commitment to a faith (Christianity). I taught homiletics (preaching) for years. What I described in my earlier post is what I taught them to do. Yes, I brought in those from other faiths as well to explain to us what they believe and why. My folks were much better off for understanding that and can speak much better about their own faith when they understand others. 

I think you will understand us better if you realize that we see ourselves as THE ONLY TRUE CHRISTIAN church.

It has been restored, the way it should have been from the beginning.

""If the bishop insisted that change, then I simply wouldn't join the LDS church or any other group that insisted that I prioritize my membership in a group rather than my commitment to a faith (Christianity).""

 You see us as a group other than "your faith" which IS "Christianity"

We claim that what is known today as "Christianity" is NOT the church Jesus founded!

I know you know that intellectually but I don't think it has really sunken in.

I think that president Nelson was brilliant in bringing back the true name of our church. 

To you you belong in a group of Christians called Mennonites. You see us as a group of Christians called Mormons.

That's not the way we see it at all.

To us we ARE THE Church of Jesus Christ, while the name "Christian" has been co-opted by others outside the true faith. 

President Nelson nailed it when he asked us to use the true name of the church and no longer call ourselves Mormons.  When I first joined the church I could not understand why that old name had stuck all these years.

It was confusing people. I thought that THESE are the Christians and the people calling themselves Christians are not the true followers of Christ.

We have a Congregation of Moravians near where I live, and I had no clue that they were Christians. I have known folks who call themselves The Brethren. 

I had no clue if they believed in Jesus either.

How can we be known as Christians when we are known as Mormons?

But the fact is we are no longer "Christians".

Most alleged "Christians" don't accept us as Christians anyway.

We are THE Church of Jesus Christ, and they are not.

Pardon my bluntness and certainly no offense is intended. I am simply calling it the way we see it inside of ourselves.

 It is an irony we see everyday, but I can imagine that if you're not a member you would not see it.  Also as a footnote I can see better now I think why it is that Mennonites study other Christian faiths, which helps them legitimize there apparently non-Christian name.  

Perhaps as a Mennonite you would have no problem meeting with Moravians, but Mormons? 

Yet we all want to be known as Christians, without calling ourselves that.

No wonder in your context, you need to study who is and who is not Christian and the names of the groups, and think of them as groups all under one central faith.  Following that logic, with our mysterious Mormon name, we should do the same.

Now I can see where you're coming from.

But that's not the way we see it.

 

 

[Ahab]

The reason we are THE CHURCH of Jesus Christ is because he has given us his authority to call all people together into our church, the church we have set up under his authority.

It's not a pride thing or a thing that our Father is crying about, as if our Father is weeping while saying.. why can't all people who want to be Christians just come together, united, determined to follow the one I have appointed to lead them?

He knows why all aren't coming together.  You're all invited, but not all of you are coming to the gathering.  We are still here, though, and if you want to join us, you may, and you would be welcomed.

[Sunslight]

"The third article of faith declares that “through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.”

To be saved—or to gain salvation—means to be saved from physical and spiritual death. Because of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, all people will be resurrected and saved from physical death. People may also be saved from individual spiritual death through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, by their faith in Him, by living in obedience to the laws and ordinances of His gospel, and by serving Him.

To be exalted—or to gain exaltation—refers to the highest state of happiness and glory in the celestial realm. These blessings can come to us after we leave this frail and mortal existence. The time to prepare for our eventual salvation and exaltation is now.^"

^{https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2008/04/salvation-and-exaltation?lang=eng}

^{As far as I can tell, this is where the new focus and definition in the new Handbook comes from. There is also this link which refers to the talk above.}

^{https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/pages/salvation-and-exaltation?lang=eng}