Tacenda Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 17 hours ago, mfbukowski said: 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. So now we're not Christians, back to the early church thinking, not liking the "Christians", ? Okay.. But I think TCOJCOLDS, are in for a rude awakening, as people will be put off with this attitude, and the church will likely shrink. According to Pres. Oaks, none of the leadership currently has seen God/Jesus. So how do we believe for sure that they know what they speak of, just faith? Well good luck with that. That's where it gets scary, IMO, when people think they speak for God. It's cultish, and I hope our church would allow that we aren't the only ones that have the true church. I think Jesus/God is pretty upset at that notion to be spread.
Navidad Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) 17 hours ago, mfbukowski said: 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. Thanks for the post. I think I understand all that you are saying and how you see it. Moving aside from my high regard for my LDS friends, in Rogerian terms you are describing your ideal self as the only true and living church – the sum total of independently self-sufficient Christianity in the world. Others may have this or that component of Christianity, part of the truth, pieces of salvation, elements of the Holy Ghost, but to close their gap in their quest for eternal life with God the Father, they will have to accept the unique and specific ordinances of the LDS church. This may happen before or after death but happen it must or eternal life in the presence of God is not possible. This is how you in a rock-solid way see your ideal self, is it not? I believe that is what you are saying. The rest of the world: scholars, data wonks, other Christians, members of other faiths, sociologists however do not see you that way. Indeed, I do not see you that way. Wonderful Godly people? Absolutely? The only true and living church on earth? The only members of the Kingdom of God on earth? The only Christians who can experience the fullness of the gift of the Holy Spirit in one’s life? The only ones to whom God has granted authority? No, not really. It is not because we don’t understand. It is not because we are stubborn. It is not because we are “kicking against the pricks” as one of you noted in the past few days. To use the Rogerian correlate, we see you phenomenologically – the way others see you. We count you, describe you, assess you as one important group within the broader world of Christianity. We, at least I, would never take that away from you. The way others see you is indeed in one sense, important. Carl Rogers taught that the greater the gap between the ideal self (how you see yourself) and the phenomenological self (how others see you), the greater the potential for discord. In the case of the LDS Church and all these “others” the gap is huge. Over the years the gap has widened and lessened. Today it remains large, fueled by claims that seek to minimize and lessen the “other” whether Mormon or Gentile, to use two common colloquial terms. In order to justify a terrible massacre of innocents in 1857, members of the church claimed that the Gentiles deserved it because they were “poisoning the wells” of central Utah. Today, in March 2020 members of the church who hold the highest priesthood still claim the same. I quote from a post on this forum from yesterday, “ I think more often than not they (non-LDS pastors) are poisoning wells and saying things which are true are not true, or vice versa.” The same accusation from one hundred sixty-two years ago. Sigh! Have we learned nothing over all those years? Of course, the “other” can be also be observed as particularly mean, and may indeed be so. Not accepting the ideal self-claims of the LDS Christian is dismissing the very words of God. It is to be an “anti-Mormon,” the epithet/slur/brickbat most widely used by members of the church for the “other.” Those who go further and deny Christianity to the LDS Christian are indeed offensive and view others from the disadvantage of their own Ideal Self-claims. Requiring fealty to this or that non-essential doctrine in the case of Mormons only and specifically is indeed offensive and stupid. Many non-LDS Christians have done this over the years. “Cult” is the chosen epithet/slur/brickbat of many of these self-proclaimed sentinels of the kingdom. And on and on it goes. In a moment of “kindness” each assures the other that they mean no offense. Each position is indeed however, patently offensive to the other. Each declares and assures that they are not being exclusive. If only the other becomes like us, agrees with us, and adopts our specific doctrine they will be fine. And on it goes. This is arrogance, regardless of its origin. The LDS member may say, “We don’t care what others think about us. We know who we are! We have it from the mouth of God!” Other people of Christian faith respond with their own similar confidence in their relationship with God. They cannot and do not accept that one way or another, they will have to accept LDS ordinances in this life or the next to punch their tickets to pass the sentinels of heaven who assure that only LDS-approved folks get to live with God the Father and Jesus Christ for eternity. At whom will the sentinels draw their swords? Those who are not worthy of course (even possibly the occasion LDS church member). At the same time the non-LDS Christian often demands something similar of the LDS Christian – “Just abandon your loyalty to Joseph Smith, non-Biblical Scriptures, your view of the Godhead, and other things in your doctrines we don’t like and you will pass our own sentinels when the time comes. We will put away our swords. In fact often non-LDS Christians become the sentinels themselves; not content to wait for Christ Himself to decide such things at the judgement seat. One popular fundamentalist newspaper in my childhood was aptly named "The Sword of the Lord." How sad! Yes, I do believe all this makes God cry. I don’t expect many to agree with me because too many view the conflict from only the perspective of their own ideal self. Perhaps what is most accurate is to simply declare that in this situation folks from all perspectives at times poison the wells, are anti-each other, arrogant, offensive and make God and the "other" cry! After all, they have God on their side, right? In this sense, I don’t think so! Edited March 4, 2020 by Navidad
pogi Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 11 minutes ago, Tacenda said: According to Pres. Oaks, none of the leadership currently has seen God/Jesus. So how do we believe for sure that they know what they speak of, just faith? Well good luck with that. I think you have been taught the "how" from childhood - "search, ponder, and pray..." Do you have any better suggestions in what or how we should believe? Without using that method of "search, ponder, and pray", please explain to me a better way to know for sure how anyone knows what they speak of? Who can you trust, and how do you know? Are you going to just believe anyone who claims that they have seen God and speaks for Him? Are you going to place your trust and faith of eternal salvation in someone who doesn't claim to receive revelation from God and is just making a best guess? Seriously, what are you proposing? Until you have a more fool-proof method, perhaps you should refrain from criticism and calling us "cultish". 14 minutes ago, Tacenda said: ...and I hope our church would allow that we aren't the only ones that have the true church. I think Jesus/God is pretty upset at that notion to be spread. What do you even mean by "we aren't the only ones that have the true church"? What do you mean by "true church"? 1
Tacenda Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) 18 minutes ago, pogi said: I think you have been taught the "how" from childhood - "search, ponder, and pray..." Do you have any better suggestions in what or how we should believe? Without using that method of "search, ponder, and pray", please explain to me a better way to know for sure how anyone knows what they speak of? Who can you trust, and how do you know? Are you going to just believe anyone who claims that they have seen God and speaks for Him? Are you going to place your trust and faith of eternal salvation in someone who doesn't claim to receive revelation from God and is just making a best guess? Seriously, what are you proposing? Until you have a more fool-proof method, perhaps you should refrain from criticism and calling us "cultish". What do you even mean by "we aren't the only ones that have the true church"? What do you mean by "true church"? I guess I've seen too many abuses when a man or woman speaks for God, I will go by my inner compass and path from now on. I didn't call the church a cult, I said it might appear cultish to say we're the only true church. It's not that hard to understand Pogi (I don't know why, but I love saying Pogi!) , didn't MF say that we are the only religion/church that is actually Jesus's? Edited March 4, 2020 by Tacenda
Ahab Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 1 hour ago, Navidad said: Thanks for the post. I think I understand all that you are saying and how you see it. Moving aside from my high regard for my LDS friends, in Rogerian terms you are describing your ideal self as the only true and living church – the sum total of independently self-sufficient Christianity in the world. Others may have this or that component of Christianity, part of the truth, pieces of salvation, elements of the Holy Ghost, but to close their gap in their quest for eternal life with God the Father, they will have to accept the unique and specific ordinances of the LDS church. This may happen before or after death but happen it must or eternal life in the presence of God is not possible. This is how you in a rock-solid way see your ideal self, is it not? I believe that is what you are saying. The rest of the world: scholars, data wonks, other Christians, members of other faiths, sociologists however do not see you that way. Indeed, I do not see you that way. Wonderful Godly people? Absolutely? The only true and living church on earth? The only members of the Kingdom of God on earth? The only Christians who can experience the fullness of the gift of the Holy Spirit in one’s life? The only ones to whom God has granted authority? No, not really. It is not because we don’t understand. It is not because we are stubborn. It is not because we are “kicking against the pricks” as one of you noted in the past few days. To use the Rogerian correlate, we see you phenomenologically – the way others see you. We count you, describe you, assess you as one important group within the broader world of Christianity. We, at least I, would never take that away from you. The way others see you is indeed in one sense, important. Carl Rogers taught that the greater the gap between the ideal self (how you see yourself) and the phenomenological self (how others see you), the greater the potential for discord. In the case of the LDS Church and all these “others” the gap is huge. Over the years the gap has widened and lessened. Today it remains large, fueled by claims that seek to minimize and lessen the “other” whether Mormon or Gentile, to use two common colloquial terms. In order to justify a terrible massacre of innocents in 1857, members of the church claimed that the Gentiles deserved it because they were “poisoning the wells” of central Utah. Today, in March 2020 members of the church who hold the highest priesthood still claim the same. I quote from a post on this forum from yesterday, “ I think more often than not they (non-LDS pastors) are poisoning wells and saying things which are true are not true, or vice versa.” The same accusation from one hundred sixty-two years ago. Sigh! Have we learned nothing over all those years? Of course, the “other” can be also be observed as particularly mean, and may indeed be so. Not accepting the ideal self-claims of the LDS Christian is dismissing the very words of God. It is to be an “anti-Mormon,” the epithet/slur/brickbat most widely used by members of the church for the “other.” Those who go further and deny Christianity to the LDS Christian are indeed offensive and view others from the disadvantage of their own Ideal Self-claims. Requiring fealty to this or that non-essential doctrine in the case of Mormons only and specifically is indeed offensive and stupid. Many non-LDS Christians have done this over the years. “Cult” is the chosen epithet/slur/brickbat of many of these self-proclaimed sentinels of the kingdom. And on and on it goes. In a moment of “kindness” each assures the other that they mean no offense. Each position is indeed however, patently offensive to the other. Each declares and assures that they are not being exclusive. If only the other becomes like us, agrees with us, and adopts our specific doctrine they will be fine. And on it goes. This is arrogance, regardless of its origin. The LDS member may say, “We don’t care what others think about us. We know who we are! We have it from the mouth of God!” Other people of Christian faith respond with their own similar confidence in their relationship with God. They cannot and do not accept that one way or another, they will have to accept LDS ordinances in this life or the next to punch their tickets to pass the sentinels of heaven who assure that only LDS-approved folks get to live with God the Father and Jesus Christ for eternity. At whom will the sentinels draw their swords? Those who are not worthy of course (even possibly the occasion LDS church member). At the same time the non-LDS Christian often demands something similar of the LDS Christian – “Just abandon your loyalty to Joseph Smith, non-Biblical Scriptures, your view of the Godhead, and other things in your doctrines we don’t like and you will pass our own sentinels when the time comes. We will put away our swords. In fact often non-LDS Christians become the sentinels themselves; not content to wait for Christ Himself to decide such things at the judgement seat. One popular fundamentalist newspaper in my childhood was aptly named "The Sword of the Lord." How sad! Yes, I do believe all this makes God cry. I don’t expect many to agree with me because too many view the conflict from only the perspective of their own ideal self. Perhaps what is most accurate is to simply declare that in this situation folks from all perspectives at times poison the wells, are anti-each other, arrogant, offensive and make God and the "other" cry! After all, they have God on their side, right? In this sense, I don’t think so! You do realize that everything you said here was said based on how YOU and others who share YOUR perspective see things, don't you? We don't see as you see and we don't want to because we can see things you do not see and we do not want to limit ourselves to your views. Point blank: Jesus Christ authorized Joseph Smith to establish a Church as HIS church on this planet. The only church on this planet with HIS authority. All who want to be members of the true church of Jesus Christ must join it otherwise they will not be members of it. You can disagree as much as you want and you can put forth as many of your contentions and arguments against how WE see things as you want, but none of that will change reality as it is.
mfbukowski Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Navidad said: Thanks for the post. I think I understand all that you are saying and how you see it. Moving aside from my high regard for my LDS friends, in Rogerian terms you are describing your ideal self as the only true and living church – the sum total of independently self-sufficient Christianity in the world. Others may have this or that component of Christianity, part of the truth, pieces of salvation, elements of the Holy Ghost, but to close their gap in their quest for eternal life with God the Father, they will have to accept the unique and specific ordinances of the LDS church. This may happen before or after death but happen it must or eternal life in the presence of God is not possible. This is how you in a rock-solid way see your ideal self, is it not? I believe that is what you are saying. The rest of the world: scholars, data wonks, other Christians, members of other faiths, sociologists however do not see you that way. Indeed, I do not see you that way. Wonderful Godly people? Absolutely? The only true and living church on earth? The only members of the Kingdom of God on earth? The only Christians who can experience the fullness of the gift of the Holy Spirit in one’s life? The only ones to whom God has granted authority? No, not really. It is not because we don’t understand. It is not because we are stubborn. It is not because we are “kicking against the pricks” as one of you noted in the past few days. To use the Rogerian correlate, we see you phenomenologically – the way others see you. We count you, describe you, assess you as one important group within the broader world of Christianity. We, at least I, would never take that away from you. The way others see you is indeed in one sense, important. Carl Rogers taught that the greater the gap between the ideal self (how you see yourself) and the phenomenological self (how others see you), the greater the potential for discord. In the case of the LDS Church and all these “others” the gap is huge. Over the years the gap has widened and lessened. Today it remains large, fueled by claims that seek to minimize and lessen the “other” whether Mormon or Gentile, to use two common colloquial terms. In order to justify a terrible massacre of innocents in 1857, members of the church claimed that the Gentiles deserved it because they were “poisoning the wells” of central Utah. Today, in March 2020 members of the church who hold the highest priesthood still claim the same. I quote from a post on this forum from yesterday, “ I think more often than not they (non-LDS pastors) are poisoning wells and saying things which are true are not true, or vice versa.” The same accusation from one hundred sixty-two years ago. Sigh! Have we learned nothing over all those years? Of course, the “other” can be also be observed as particularly mean, and may indeed be so. Not accepting the ideal self-claims of the LDS Christian is dismissing the very words of God. It is to be an “anti-Mormon,” the epithet/slur/brickbat most widely used by members of the church for the “other.” Those who go further and deny Christianity to the LDS Christian are indeed offensive and view others from the disadvantage of their own Ideal Self-claims. Requiring fealty to this or that non-essential doctrine in the case of Mormons only and specifically is indeed offensive and stupid. Many non-LDS Christians have done this over the years. “Cult” is the chosen epithet/slur/brickbat of many of these self-proclaimed sentinels of the kingdom. And on and on it goes. In a moment of “kindness” each assures the other that they mean no offense. Each position is indeed however, patently offensive to the other. Each declares and assures that they are not being exclusive. If only the other becomes like us, agrees with us, and adopts our specific doctrine they will be fine. And on it goes. This is arrogance, regardless of its origin. The LDS member may say, “We don’t care what others think about us. We know who we are! We have it from the mouth of God!” Other people of Christian faith respond with their own similar confidence in their relationship with God. They cannot and do not accept that one way or another, they will have to accept LDS ordinances in this life or the next to punch their tickets to pass the sentinels of heaven who assure that only LDS-approved folks get to live with God the Father and Jesus Christ for eternity. At whom will the sentinels draw their swords? Those who are not worthy of course (even possibly the occasion LDS church member). At the same time the non-LDS Christian often demands something similar of the LDS Christian – “Just abandon your loyalty to Joseph Smith, non-Biblical Scriptures, your view of the Godhead, and other things in your doctrines we don’t like and you will pass our own sentinels when the time comes. We will put away our swords. In fact often non-LDS Christians become the sentinels themselves; not content to wait for Christ Himself to decide such things at the judgement seat. One popular fundamentalist newspaper in my childhood was aptly named "The Sword of the Lord." How sad! Yes, I do believe all this makes God cry. I don’t expect many to agree with me because too many view the conflict from only the perspective of their own ideal self. Perhaps what is most accurate is to simply declare that in this situation folks from all perspectives at times poison the wells, are anti-each other, arrogant, offensive and make God and the "other" cry! After all, they have God on their side, right? In this sense, I don’t think so! Perhaps all my words got in the way of the spirit of the post. My point was simply that "Christianity" has rejected us, even though we believe that we are the restored Church of Jesus Christ. I think that is the main reason we don't study " Christianity", because it has rejected us. Given no other options we have chosen to go our own way. Remember that we believe that even in the first Vision God called other churches "abominable". Whether or not one believes that that actually happened I think one cannot erase those words from our cultural mentality. To reject those words means to reject everything that Joseph taught because he was lying. My feeling is that Joseph perhaps used stronger language than God had intended. Had it not been for a sectarian Christianity the world would not have been ready for a restoration of it. The name of Jesus Christ would have not been universally known. There would be nothing to restore. I'm truly sorry if the post was in any way offensive. Edited March 4, 2020 by mfbukowski
Ahab Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) 9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: My point was simply that "Christianity" has rejected us, even though we believe that we are the restored Church of Jesus Christ. I think that is the main reason we don't study " Christianity", because it has rejected us. Given no other options we have chosen to go our own way. No, we don't study "Christianity" as it is called because we would rather study the truth that our Savior has taught us, instead, both personally and through his authorized servants. Every other so-called "Christian" group teaches things that are false mixed in with the truth, leading people away from the true church of Jesus Christ they should all want to join. We are the gathering place. They must come to us, the only authorized church of Jesus Christ on this planet. We have other options. We could join them by joining their churches and leaving our church. We can pick any other we want. But if we want to be in the true church of Jesus Christ we need to be in the right one. And there is only one. If we're not in that one then we are not in his. Edited March 4, 2020 by Ahab
pogi Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: I guess I've seen too many abuses when a man or woman speaks for God, I will go by my inner compass and path from now on. Am I supposed to accept that because there are false prophets that true prophets cannot exist? If you believe in ancient prophets, why do you poo-poo the idea of modern prophets? Were people not led astray by false prophets in ancient times too? Would you have counseled ancient people to avoid prophets all together because some are false? You speak as if these are mutually exclusive ideas to believe in a prophet and follow your inner compass - what if your inner compass leads you to believe what a prophet speaks? Edited March 4, 2020 by pogi 1
pogi Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Navidad said: Each declares and assures that they are not being exclusive. If you are speaking of the Kingdom of Heaven, I didn't think we really have a say in the matter. We don't have the ability to exclude anyone from heaven. We don't pretend to place ourselves above the ultimate arbiter and judge. If you are speaking of churches, on the other hand, then every church is exclusive with their membership in some way or another. If you are speaking in terms of Christianity, then let each man decide for himself where he stands - no man can decide that for you. I think it is a terrible misunderstanding to term what we believe as "arrogance". Was it arrogant of the ancient prophets to lay down the word of God and say "those who obey in this way will be saved, and those who don't will be damned...", even if that meant some would be excluded? On the contrary, to heed and follow the will of the Lord before your own will, even if it makes you unpopular, requires incredible humility. How easy would it be to say that everyone will be exalted regardless? It is really easy to be inclusive, but it is not very helpful when man is not the ultimate arbiter. 3 hours ago, Navidad said: Perhaps what is most accurate is to simply declare that in this situation folks from all perspectives at times poison the wells, are anti-each other, arrogant, offensive and make God and the "other" cry! After all, they have God on their side, right? In this sense, I don’t think so! Just to clarify, are you including your own perspective as an arrogant one too? Are you not simply placing your perspective above ours (if that is how you are defining arrogance)? Or, are you defining arrogance by how exclusive one interprets the word of God to be? I simply don't see that as arrogance. There is a difference between arrogance and a humble confidence. Arrogance seeks to keep others down below you - it wants to exclude; while humble confidence seeks to lift others up to the same level - it wants to include. Edited March 4, 2020 by pogi 1
Ahab Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Navidad said: Thanks for the post. I think I understand all that you are saying and how you see it. Moving aside from my high regard for my LDS friends, in Rogerian terms you are describing your ideal self as the only true and living church – the sum total of independently self-sufficient Christianity in the world. I just have to point out a few errors in this idea. We, as individuals, are not the Church and the Church is not our ideal self. We are the Church only as a collective body of believers who have accepted what our Savior has taught and commanded that everybody do and accept. Before we joined the Church, by being baptized by those with authority from our Lord to baptize and give the gift of the Holy Ghost, we were not members of the Church and were instead outside of it.. We were an "other", wherever we came from. Nobody automatically becomes a member of the Church even if they are born as a baby to parents who are both members of the Church. The only way to get into the Church, as a member, is to be baptized into it, which includes being given the gift of the Holy Ghost. Even if we were a member of some other "Christian" church, if we were not properly baptized by members of the Church who were authorized to administer the proper ordinances with authority from our Lord, we still had to choose to become a member of the Church, through baptism, which included receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Ordinances administered by members of other churches are not valid in the true church of Jesus Christ. I thought I was a pretty good Christian, too, until I found out about the true church of Jesus Christ. I thought I was already in it, too, when I was a member of a church called the "Church of Christ". Made sense, logically, and my parents told me that was the right church. But I found out for myself, with the help of revelation from God, that I was not in the true church of Jesus Christ back then, even though I had been trying my best, as far as I knew, to be a good Christian. So it's not something others can't do if they want to. Everybody can join. The "others" just need to humble themselves and do what God has told them to do, as we did, when we became members of the true church of Jesus Christ, which is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Quote To use the Rogerian correlate, we see you phenomenologically – the way others see you. We count you, describe you, assess you as one important group within the broader world of Christianity. That is part of the problem. You need to find out what God wants from you and how God sees you, not based on how others see you. Unless you're including God as an "other", then that is fine and who you should look to for guidance. Edited March 4, 2020 by Ahab
Navidad Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) 22 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I think you will understand us better if you realize that we see ourselves as THE ONLY TRUE CHRISTIAN church. I agree about the understanding and I do realize that is how you see yourselves. 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" I do not do this. I believe your faith in Christ is my faith in Christ - no question about it. You probably don't agree that my faith in Christ is your faith in Christ. That is a difference and part of the challenge. We claim that what is known today as "Christianity" is NOT the church Jesus founded! I know that and think that it allows you to believe your ideal self perspective. I simply don't agree. I know you know that intellectually but I don't think it has really sunken in. It hadn't sunk in a year or so ago, but it has now. I think that president Nelson was brilliant in bringing back the true name of our church. I have no opinion about that. To you you belong in a group of Christians called Mennonites. You see us as a group of Christians called Mormons. That is correct. It is a widely-held belief in the broad Christian community. That's not the way we see it at all. I understand that. But in an effort to have you understand me, I tell you my viewpoint. That is dialogue is it not? To us we ARE THE Church of Jesus Christ, while the name "Christian" has been co-opted by others outside the true faith. I believe you are a Church of Jesus Christ. Indefinite article, not definite! I take none of your Christianness away from you (I made up that word)! 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. I am not sure I follow this, but you are sharing your own experience. I love it when folks here do that. 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. OK, Google isn't far away! By the way, The Brethren are an Anabaptist group. For a while the Whitmers were Brethren. In fact they helped found the River Brethren group. - More than you cared to know! 😀 How can we be known as Christians when we are known as Mormons? I don't think I have ever met anyone anywhere who didn't know that Mormons have a identity with Christianity. Some didn't acknowledge the validity of it. But many do. But the fact is we are no longer "Christians". OK. Never heard that one before. I can't wait to see where you are going with that. Most alleged "Christians" don't accept us as Christians anyway. I don't know about "most." I have no data points on that. You may be right, but I hope not. I think that has changed greatly over time. We are THE Church of Jesus Christ, and they are not. They (we) are certainly not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that is true. But they (we) are a church of Jesus Christ. Much more importantly I am a Christian. That is what counts, not what a church is or isn't. Christ didn't die for churches. A church never saved anyone. Pardon my bluntness and certainly no offense is intended. I am simply calling it the way we see it inside of ourselves. I agree that you are calling it the way you see it inside of yourselves ---- that is why what you are describing is called your "ideal self." You have an idealized view of yourselves and of your group. Many folks do. But there is another view as well, isn't there? That is how others see you and your group. That isn't my opinion; it is a fact of life. I believe with all my heart it pays to pay attention to how others see us. It doesn't do much good for me to see myself as the best father ever if my son and wife don't think so? Wouldn't you agree? Denying or ignoring how others see us stamps out opportunity for learning and growth. 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. I am not sure I understand what the irony is that you see every day? Maybe that is because I am not a member. Perhaps what you are describing is the same irony I see every day on this forum and sometimes on Sunday in the ward. I am just not sure? Perhaps as a Mennonite you would have no problem meeting with Moravians, but Mormons? Are you talking to me? I have never met with a Moravian in my life. Let's see Sunday is two meetings plus choir practice, Saturday is clean the chapel, Monday is "empty-nesters" group. Wednesday I help host an LDS group visiting the colonies, Tuesday my wife has Bible study; Thursday is book study . . . . and on and on. Are you talking to me? Yet we all want to be known as Christians, without calling ourselves that. Are you talking to me? I constantly call myself a Christian ---- oh and you too .......and Pogi, and Ahab, and SMAC, and Bluebell, and a zillion others on this forum. I am not sure about Nehor! (that was a joke). 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. Hmmm.....you are not describing what I need and like to do. I need to study different doctrines that different groups hold so that I can be a more well-rounded student of religion, religious history and conflict. If you are talking about other Christian groups, then yes I do think of them as "all under one central faith" - including members of the LDS church. I know that isn't how you think of you. I get it. I am taking ownership of the fact that it is how I think of you. My phenomenological view of you is that yes, you are indeed a part of the Christian faith. That is how my view of you is different from your view of you. I understand that. Do you? I am not denying you, your view of you. There is simply a great gulf between my view of you and your view of you? I am not sure how we bridge that. That is what I would like to work on. Now I can see where you're coming from. Hopefully line by line, I have helped clarify that. But that's not the way we see it. I got that! You all have an ideal self perspective of your church. I don't share it in its entirety. An LDS Christian and a non-LDS Christian actually wrote a book entitled "How Wide the Divide?" I read the book several times; I am not sure they answered the question! Maybe some of us on here should tackle the same subject! Wouldn't that be fun? We could even make it kind of philosophical, just for you! Edited March 4, 2020 by Navidad
Navidad Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 22 minutes ago, pogi said: If you are speaking of the Kingdom of Heaven, I didn't think we really have a say in the matter. We don't have the ability to exclude anyone from heaven. We don't pretend to place ourselves above the ultimate arbiter and judge. If you are speaking of churches, on the other hand, then every church is exclusive with their membership in some way or another. If you are speaking in terms of Christianity, then let each man decide for himself where he stands - no man can decide that for you. I think it is a terrible misunderstanding to term what we believe as "arrogance". Was it arrogant of the ancient prophets to lay down the word of God and say "those who obey in this way will be saved, and those who don't will be damned...", even if that meant some would be excluded? On the contrary, to heed and follow the will of the Lord before your own will, even if it makes you unpopular, requires incredible humility. How easy would it be to say that everyone will be exalted regardless? It is really easy to be inclusive, but it is not very helpful when man is not the ultimate arbiter. Just to clarify, are you including your own perspective as an arrogant one too? Are you not simply placing your perspective above ours (if that is how you are defining arrogance)? Or, are you defining arrogance by how exclusive one interprets the word of God to be? I simply don't see that as arrogance. There is a difference between arrogance and a humble confidence. Arrogance seeks to keep others down below you - it wants to exclude; while humble confidence seeks to lift others up to the same level - it wants to include. Hi Pogi: Regarding the Kingdom - the church's imagery of sentinels and swords is pretty exclusive! It sure would intimidate me! I have had members of the LDS church clearly state that the LDS church will have representatives, not above but beside the one who is the ultimate arbiter and judge. That is pretty bold, if not arrogant. Yes, every church is exclusive from one degree to another with their membership, but that has nothing to do with membership in the Kingdom of God or eternal life with Heavenly Father. There is not a church in the world that I know of that deems that membership in that church is the requirement for eternal life with the Father - except the LDS church. Why do I say that? Salvation and exaltation are necessary for eternal life with the Father; ergo salvation and exaltation are available only through LDS ordinances, ergo LDS membership is required for LDS ordinances, ergo LDS membership is required for eternal life with the Father, correct? If not arrogant, that is a pretty bold perspective. With all the respect I have for you I think that line of thought transcends a quiet confidence. Now, I would be grossly unfair if I did not acknowledge that I have met quietly confident members of the LDS church. I also acknowledge that my experiences with loudly arrogant members is anecdotal, just as is often shared on this forum by members bemoaning their encounters with ugly fundamentalist non-LDS Christians. I acknowledge both. I am speaking in terms of Christianity and I do believe we each need to decide for ourselves where we stand. My problem with many LDS church members is they are very eager to tell me where I stand with the Father without even knowing me. That is what I deem arrogant. Am I acknowledging that my own perspective is an arrogant one too? If you think it is, that is all that matters to me. I know I am programmed to think the best of me. You may see me more as I really am. Multiply that by other folks saying the same thing and the phenomenological view of me becomes more valid and reliable, regardless of what I think of myself. If I respect you and you say I am arrogant in my posts, then I will take that very seriously. Having said that, I don't believe I have ever said that the Mennonite Church is the only true and living church on earth with whom God is pleased. That would be arrogant. I don't think I have ever hinted to anyone on this forum that I don't believe that LDS-Christians are not fully and completely Christian. That would be arrogant and wrong. I fully acknowledge that I may be wr........, wr............, wrong about a host of things. I am certainly guilty of trying to help others see how they or their in-group are perceived by others. That is most likely an arrogant thing to do unless it is asked for. I have done that many times in my two and a half years on this forum. The early prophets were not arrogant, although I am sure that many times they were perceived that way by others. I am quietly confident, to use your phrase that no such prophets exist in this dispensation. That is my belief; I don't object to anyone disagreeing with me on that. It is a non-essential. Just as an explanation - I believe an OT prophet had the gifts of forthtelling and foretelling. I believe all modern prophets of whatever group lack the second component of that - the ability to foretell of something before it happens. Your last sentence is very powerful . . . very powerful. I agree with all you say in it. Now how do I apply that to our current discussion - that is the question - the hermeneutic! To offer my perspective which I think is what you are asking for . . . there are those across Christianity in every "group" who seek to exclude and keep others down; they are the arrogant ones in my view. They may distort their own faith in so doing, but they still do it. Many of you have apparently run into non-LDS Christians who demonstrate that definition of arrogance. I am sorry for that. I would certainly stand beside any of you to confront them for that. I can only testify that I have run across LDS Christians, even on this forum who I believe fit the same purpose and definition. That is my experience. I simply share that with you for no other purpose than to comment on your powerful last sentence. I am not sure I know of anyone on this forum or in our ward, who if a fellow LDS-Christian was berating me, would stand beside me to confront them for that. The only exception I can think of is our bishop. I would trust myself in his hands. Otherwise, I think the ranks of the faithful would close and to use your terminology I would be kept down and excluded.
Ahab Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 1 hour ago, pogi said: Arrogance seeks to keep others down below you - it wants to exclude; while humble confidence seeks to lift others up to the same level - it wants to include. Why are you using the word humble with confidence? Would you agree that being boldly confident could be mistaken for arrogance? And do you think someone could be boldly confident while still being a humble disciple of God? Doctrine and Covenants 121:45 Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven. Acts 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. 2 Corinthians 10:1 Now I Paul myself beseech you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ, who in presence am base among you, but being absent am bold toward you:
Ahab Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 15 minutes ago, Navidad said: the church's imagery of sentinels and swords is pretty exclusive! It sure would intimidate me! I have had members of the LDS church clearly state that the LDS church will have representatives, not above but beside the one who is the ultimate arbiter and judge. That is pretty bold, if not arrogant. think of the cherubim with flaming swords who guard the way to the tree of life. As members of the true church of Jesus Christ, those cherubim would be on our side 15 minutes ago, Navidad said: There is not a church in the world that I know of that deems that membership in that church is the requirement for eternal life with the Father - except the LDS church. Why do I say that? Salvation and exaltation are necessary for eternal life with the Father; ergo salvation and exaltation are available only through LDS ordinances, ergo LDS membership is required for LDS ordinances, ergo LDS membership is required for eternal life with the Father, correct? If not arrogant, that is a pretty bold perspective. With all the respect I have for you I think that line of thought transcends a quiet confidence. I could sit and remain quietly confident without saying anything to you about my faith in this. If you want to join the true church of Jesus Christ, you may and we would welcome you as a member. Until you do though you are an outsider and we can either try to help you realize why you should want to be a member of the true church with us or we can just sit by and say nothing while you try to figure everything out on your own through prayer with our Father in heaven. We're just trying to teach you what we know and understand, is all.
CV75 Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 5 hours ago, Sunslight said: "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 Salvation is also redemption from physical death alone, as referenced in scripture (Mosiah 15;23, Mormon 9:15). This is why the quote above says, "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." See also: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/true-to-the-faith/salvation?lang=eng
mfbukowski Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 39 minutes ago, Navidad said: An LDS Christian and a non-LDS Christian actually wrote a book entitled "How Wide the Divide?" I read the book several times; I am not sure they answered the question! Maybe some of us on here should tackle the same subject! Wouldn't that be fun? We could even make it kind of philosophical! Thanks for your reply. Sure, I would be interested in reading that and discussing it. My time right now is pretty tied up but I would like to try. My wife and anyone who has seen me knows that I do not care much about how I dress or appear to others. As an only child and 60s draft Dodger I never quite got the Conformity thing. I regret my part in what happened during those years." Blood and sins of this generation I suppose." I invented my own philosophical version of Mormonism without even knowing about Mormonism, and then I that someone who was LDS and I was just shocked out of my mind that they believe what I had already believed philosophically, but was unable to connect it to Christianity. I was a theistic humanist, worshipping the Human Ideal as a human construction, creating worlds naturally, as suggested by Dewey The idea that God IS immanent, and a Human is what was missing, as well as the insight that the person Jesus of Nazareth was/is that Human God. The God of sectarian Christianity is not immanent. Yes, in a very literal view, we do not worship the God of sectarian Christianity That is the theology I got from Mormonism. So in a sense I think that God gave me my own personal philosophical "restoration", but missing crucial pieces, before I even found the church. No I never knew that Mormons were Christians. I didn't care enough about Christianity to even care. I am not a convert from Christianity. I'm a convert from atheism. So I have never cared much about what people thought of me, or how I appear to them. I don't care if we are members of the "Christian" club or not. I do not see us as a Christian "group", so I may use that word occasionally for communication purposes. So how wide The Divide? Pretty wide, if you consider the immanent/transcendent distinction which changes everything. It was a big thing in the Nicene Creed era. But nowadays no one even thinks about it. I think about it. 1
Ahab Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: So how wide The Divide? Pretty wide, if you consider the immanent/transcendent distinction which changes everything. It was a big thing in the Nicene Creed era. But nowadays no one even thinks about it. I think about it. i thought about it in my past but I don't think much about it anymore. Still do, though, on some occasions. Now that I am no longer a child I have put away that childish view of things and now see more as I am seen, even though sometimes I still see through a glass darkly.
pogi Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 40 minutes ago, Navidad said: Hi Pogi: Regarding the Kingdom - the church's imagery of sentinels and swords is pretty exclusive! It sure would intimidate me! I have had members of the LDS church clearly state that the LDS church will have representatives, not above but beside the one who is the ultimate arbiter and judge. That is pretty bold, if not arrogant. Yes, every church is exclusive from one degree to another with their membership, but that has nothing to do with membership in the Kingdom of God or eternal life with Heavenly Father. There is not a church in the world that I know of that deems that membership in that church is the requirement for eternal life with the Father - except the LDS church. Why do I say that? Salvation and exaltation are necessary for eternal life with the Father; ergo salvation and exaltation are available only through LDS ordinances, ergo LDS membership is required for LDS ordinances, ergo LDS membership is required for eternal life with the Father, correct? If not arrogant, that is a pretty bold perspective. With all the respect I have for you I think that line of thought transcends a quiet confidence. Now, I would be grossly unfair if I did not acknowledge that I have met quietly confident members of the LDS church. I also acknowledge that my experiences with loudly arrogant members is anecdotal, just as is often shared on this forum by members bemoaning their encounters with ugly fundamentalist non-LDS Christians. I acknowledge both. I am speaking in terms of Christianity and I do believe we each need to decide for ourselves where we stand. My problem with many LDS church members is they are very eager to tell me where I stand with the Father without even knowing me. That is what I deem arrogant. Am I acknowledging that my own perspective is an arrogant one too? If you think it is, that is all that matters to me. I know I am programmed to think the best of me. You may see me more as I really am. Multiply that by other folks saying the same thing and the phenomenological view of me becomes more valid and reliable, regardless of what I think of myself. If I respect you and you say I am arrogant in my posts, then I will take that very seriously. Having said that, I don't believe I have ever said that the Mennonite Church is the only true and living church on earth with whom God is pleased. That would be arrogant. I don't think I have ever hinted to anyone on this forum that I don't believe that LDS-Christians are not fully and completely Christian. That would be arrogant and wrong. I fully acknowledge that I may be wr........, wr............, wrong about a host of things. I am certainly guilty of trying to help others see how they or their in-group are perceived by others. That is most likely an arrogant thing to do unless it is asked for. I have done that many times in my two and a half years on this forum. The early prophets were not arrogant, although I am sure that many times they were perceived that way by others. I am quietly confident, to use your phrase that no such prophets exist in this dispensation. That is my belief; I don't object to anyone disagreeing with me on that. It is a non-essential. Just as an explanation - I believe an OT prophet had the gifts of forthtelling and foretelling. I believe all modern prophets of whatever group lack the second component of that - the ability to foretell of something before it happens. Your last sentence is very powerful . . . very powerful. I agree with all you say in it. Now how do I apply that to our current discussion - that is the question - the hermeneutic! To offer my perspective which I think is what you are asking for . . . there are those across Christianity in every "group" who seek to exclude and keep others down; they are the arrogant ones in my view. They may distort their own faith in so doing, but they still do it. Many of you have apparently run into non-LDS Christians who demonstrate that definition of arrogance. I am sorry for that. I would certainly stand beside any of you to confront them for that. I can only testify that I have run across LDS Christians, even on this forum who I believe fit the same purpose and definition. That is my experience. I simply share that with you for no other purpose than to comment on your powerful last sentence. I am not sure I know of anyone on this forum or in our ward, who if a fellow LDS-Christian was berating me, would stand beside me to confront them for that. The only exception I can think of is our bishop. I would trust myself in his hands. Otherwise, I think the ranks of the faithful would close and to use your terminology I would be kept down and excluded. Ok, so it sounds like the "arrogance" you speak of is in relation to your perception of exclusion from the kingdom of Heaven. I never claimed the Kingdom was not exclusive. Of course it is. Don't you agree? My point is that it is not us who makes the rules, we simply interpret them. If God tells you that you have to be a Christian to enter his Kingdom, and you relay that message to non-Christians, are you being arrogant? Is that not exclusive? We simply interpret the borders of exclusivity in different ways. Not arrogant, just different. In some ways our interpretation is more inclusive, in other ways (exaltation) it is more exclusive. But you don't even believe in exaltation/deification in the same way we do, so we are comparing apples and oranges. Perhaps you are being more exclusive in that you exclude everyone from our views of exaltation. You exclude us from our own doctrine - arrogant? I wouldn't call that arrogant, you simply interpret the word of the Lord different. 2
Teancum Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 5 hours ago, pogi said: I think you have been taught the "how" from childhood - "search, ponder, and pray..." Do you have any better suggestions in what or how we should believe? Without using that method of "search, ponder, and pray", please explain to me a better way to know for sure how anyone knows what they speak of? Who can you trust, and how do you know? Are you going to just believe anyone who claims that they have seen God and speaks for Him? Are you going to place your trust and faith of eternal salvation in someone who doesn't claim to receive revelation from God and is just making a best guess? Seriously, what are you proposing? Until you have a more fool-proof method, perhaps you should refrain from criticism and calling us "cultish". What do you even mean by "we aren't the only ones that have the true church"? What do you mean by "true church"? I know we have been here before but personally I think the scientific method is fare better. Lot's of religions teach to search, ponder, pray, listen to God, follow the spirit and have faith. And their adherents testify that this method has brought them to God's truth. The problem is that those so called God's truth conflict with everyone else's God's truth. I cannot think of a poorer way to find truth than the one you just outlined. In fact the only area of a person's life that this method is used it typically for religious seeking. It certainly is not that way technology is made and developed for example.
Calm Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, Tacenda said: According to Pres. Oaks, none of the leadership currently has seen God/Jesus. CFR Edited March 4, 2020 by Calm
mfbukowski Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Navidad said: Hmmm.....you are not describing what I need and like to do. I need to study different doctrines that different groups hold so that I can be a more well-rounded student of religion, religious history and conflict. If you are talking about other Christian groups, then yes I do think of them as "all under one central faith" - including members of the LDS church. I know that isn't how you think of you. I get it. I am taking ownership of the fact that it is how I think of you. My phenomenological view of you is that yes, you are indeed a part of the Christian faith. That is how my view of you is different from your view of you. I understand that. Do you? I am not denying you, your view of you. There is simply a great gulf between my view of you and your view of you? I am not sure how we bridge that. That is what I would like to work on. We have totally left Catholicism out of the discussion. They also believe that salvation comes only through the Catholic Church. What we now call "Christianity" was once called The Universal Church which is Catholicism In a very real sense protestantism invented "Christianity" as a group of churches which were not Catholic. Before that there was no group calling themselves "Christians" separate from the Catholic Church. I would say that in a sense, Protestantism created "Christianity"as we think about it today. Add there was no salvation outside of Christianity/Catholicism. And on that basis we claim a Restoration of the original order of things. Edited March 4, 2020 by mfbukowski 2
Ahab Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: We have totally left Catholicism out of the discussion. They also believe that salvation comes only through the Catholic Church. What we now call "Christianity" was once called The Universal Church which is Catholicism In a very real sense protestantism invented "Christianity" as a group of churches which were not Catholic. Before that there was no group calling themselves "Christians" separate from the Catholic Church. I would say that in a sense, Protestantism created "Christianity"as we think about it today. That is worthy of a whole other thread, or 2, but I'll leave that to someone else if they want to do it. It is good to realize how everything came about, though. And it didn't start when Jesus Christ came here for his mortal ministry either, even with Paul saying through Luke that disciples of Jesus Christ were first called Christians in a town called Antioch. I can understand how a disciple of Jesus Christ could rightly be called a Christian, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a person must be in the true church of Jesus Christ to be considered a true Christian. Some Christians just don't know much about what the true church of Jesus Christ really is, and yet they still try to be the best Christian they know how to be. I was like that, once. There was a time when I didn't know which church was the true church of Jesus Christ. But then I found it, and joined it soon after I found it, and now I am still a Christian.
pogi Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) 48 minutes ago, Teancum said: I know we have been here before but personally I think the scientific method is fare better. Lot's of religions teach to search, ponder, pray, listen to God, follow the spirit and have faith. And their adherents testify that this method has brought them to God's truth. The problem is that those so called God's truth conflict with everyone else's God's truth. I cannot think of a poorer way to find truth than the one you just outlined. In fact the only area of a person's life that this method is used it typically for religious seeking. It certainly is not that way technology is made and developed for example. We are speaking of truth in different ways - different spheres of truth. What is the scientific method going to tell you about morality? How do you test for morality? What does the scientific method teach us about preparing for the after-life? The scientific method taught us how to make bombs, it doesn't teach us if it is moral or not to use them. The fact that people can come to different conclusions, each claiming to be directed by the spirit/faith, is not evidence of a dysfunctional system. If anything, it is evidence of a loving God directing us each in a personalized way that will eventually lead to the same end. It is evidence that we have to work through our cultural bias/perspectives. It is evidence that we see through a glass darkly, with our filters being removed line-upon-line... Edited March 4, 2020 by pogi 1
pogi Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 1 hour ago, Ahab said: Why are you using the word humble with confidence? To distinguish it from arrogance. 1 hour ago, Ahab said: Would you agree that being boldly confident could be mistaken for arrogance? Yes...that's why I used the word "humble". 1 hour ago, Ahab said: And do you think someone could be boldly confident while still being a humble disciple of God? Of course.
Ahab Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 This is from an account of Orson F. Whitney, who was an Apostle for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints:"Many years ago a learned man, a member of the Roman Catholic Church, came to Utah and spoke from the stand of the Salt Lake Tabernacle. I became well-acquanted with him, and we conversed freely and frankly. A great scholar, with perhaps a dozen languages at his tongue’s end, he seemed to know all about theology, law, literature, science and philosophy. One day he said to me: 'You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don’t even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, your are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that’s all there is to it. The Protestants haven’t a leg to stand on. For, if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, since they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we have apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there is no need of Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism’s attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the gospel in latter days."
Recommended Posts