Vines, Branches, Citizens, and Faithful Non-members

teddyaware · June 2, 2020

5 hours ago, Calm said:

It can be hard to correct someone when their emotions are strong because it is so easy to come across as being dismissive when you say to someone “you are wrong” or “your understanding is incorrect, that is not how it works”. Besides in face to face encounters, I have seen it happen over and over in online interaction. Reassuring someone will never pay for someone else’s unworthiness doesn’t work in a real, immediate painful situation. At the very least trust must be establish so they understand you are not trying to avoid the pain or make light of it.

I am not sure that level of misunderstanding can be corrected in a SS class. It takes in depth questioning to discover her assumptions and how she got to that place. I suspect many were bewildered how to be supportive of her without making her believe they were supportive of what they knew she misunderstood. They didn’t want to make her feel worse by agreeing with a horrible belief that is thankfully false. They didn’t want to make her feel worse by seemingly trivializing her pain by telling her she was wrong. Thus the silence. (Assuming here the other class members understood because it is a very basic teaching.)

I think the best solution might be for the bishop to visit her privately and teach her the correct principles there. In class, I think a recognition that we struggle because of our loved ones’ failings, that it is painful when our dreams of happiness and righteousness in our homes don’t come true would help create a sense that others see her pain as based on actual problems and not all in her head so to speak. And then focus on the healing power of the Atonement that will cover all sin, our own and others. And then move on if possible. If not, maybe the teacher or someone close to the person hurting could ask the individual if they would like to talk about in more detail later where there would be less distraction, that they, the teacher, would very much like to have the opportunity listen to them.

I understand. For example, it’s said that it rarely offers any real solace to tell bitterly grieving parents that they will one day be reunited with a child they just lost to a terrible disease or car accident. I get it... Nonetheless, for those with great faith and unshakable testimonies such words might very well offer genuine comfort because they would be perceived as being true. So it seems to all boil down to the strength of conversion and testimony. For those who are weak in faith and understanding, intensive counseling sessions may be required before they begin to find the road that leads to acceptance and healIng. But for those blessed with a deep understanding of the mysteries of God’s infinite love and mercy, there is no fear that any kind of injustice or unfairness will ever triumph in the end.

Edited June 2, 2020 by teddyaware

teddyaware · June 2, 2020

18 hours ago, Navidad said:

On another thread it was noted that some things on the forum that are said seem to upset me. I was encouraged to start a new thread to discuss this. I can't help but make it a bit personal, since I can only talk about my lived experience. I hope the moderators will give me some slack. This discussion could be a learning opportunity for all of us. I trust 95% of those on this forum enough to open myself up to be the originator of this discussion even if it means I might be hurt or upset. There is long history with Mormonism of exclusion and persecution just as there has been in my Mennonite faith. We are both similar and dissimilar in that regard. I am willing to open myself up in this thread. In fact I would be glad to have the members of this forum understand me better and me understand you better after my almost three years on it. I won't whine or proselytize. I already believe you all are fully Christian and it really doesn't matter to me which branch you are on the vine. So here we go - in answer to a comment that was made about me getting upset when you all simply tell me what it is you believe . . . . .

1. I am trying to understand the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As a means to that end, I have attended an LDS ward for several years and I regularly read and sometimes post on this forum. I have an excellent rating! Ha! How about that? I have bought and devoured several hundred books by LDS leaders and thinkers from the 1840's on to the most current literature. Unless you are or have been a Mormon Studies professor at a university I will happily compare my personal LDS library to yours.

I do not wish to belong to the LDS church. I am not struggling with that. I am not trying to be a citizen of two countries. I don't see our respective faiths as two countries. I see them more perhaps as two states within one country. I am actually quite content with my beliefs and with being first and foremost a Christian - fully and completely a Christian, secondly an Evangelical, third holding the specific and unique beliefs of Anabaptism as expressed in one particular Mennonite community. I do not believe that my faith group is the only anything. We are one branch under the vineship (I just made up that word) of Christ – as is the LDS church (a branch on the vine).

My intent is also to understand better the historic animosity between LDS Christians and non-LDS Christians beginning in New York in 1830 and continuing to this day. I have come to learn it is quite mutual. I want to understand that tension better. Within my own little tiny sphere of influence, I would like to help make it better. I will most likely not succeed however because there are precious few on either side who really want it to be any better. The twin towers of certainty and persecution meet both groups' (LDS and non-LDS) identity needs. It is complex. I have no spirit-led desire or interest in assuming a new identity- that of LDS. My identity as a committed Christian, pleasing (for the most part) in God’s sight is enough for me. I hope that settles that issue. I am a student and a friend of the church. I advocate for you when surrounded by hostile and mostly misinformed non-LDS Christians. There are some within the LDS community who advocate for me when I am mocked by LDS Christians. I appreciate both. Through my quest to understand I have gained a core of knowledge that seems to be attractive to some in leadership in the church - especially about the LDS church in Mexico and about the LDS/Mormon fundamentalist origins and connections. I would love to hear your thoughts about the mutual tension that exists between the LDS Christian world and the non-LDS Christian world. Can it ever be better? Should it? Will compromises be necessary that very few want to make? What are the appendages (Joseph Smith) or the non-essentials that we shouldn't be fighting about?

2. I must admit I get upset when my LDS friends dwell on being "worthy" by virtue of their affiliation with a specific church within historic Christianity. Its ordinances, practices, unique and special nature enable members and only members to "be worthy" before Christ. I get upset about that because of my passionate belief that none of us are worthy. Nor will any of us ever be worthy to merit the atonement of Christ or a position in the celestial kingdom. That is why it is termed a gift. A gift that can never be merited. That is why the Bible is pretty clear that we are declared righteousness, even though we are not. That is God’s gift to us. I feel badly for the 95 year old lady in our ward who was in tears in our Gospel Doctrine class because she wasn't certain she would ever see the celestial kingdom, because that can only be hers based on her husband's worthiness and the quality of their relationship. It broke my heart. There was such silence in the room. Yes, that upset me.

3. I do get upset when folks on this forum speak to me in the transactional analysis paradigm of parent-child. There are those on the forum who regularly talk down to me. I also get upset when folks on this forum have used LDS slurs at me. These include “son of Cain,” “follower of Baal,” “anti-Mormon,” a pretender and one who plays make-believe. Yes, these epithets upset me.

4. Your sincerely held beliefs do not upset me, except when they exclude me. I must admit to that. I really do not understand why you collectively do not understand that. You collectively and individually certainly get upset when non-LDS Christians exclude you, don’t you? You collectively are in an awkward spot, as I am. You are on the edge of the inside with the broader Christian community. That is an uncomfortable place to be when your “edgeness” causes you to be excluded. So, it is with me. I am on the edge of the inside of the LDS church. That is my choice as is your edgeness as well. It is not comfortable when you are excluded. It is not comfortable when I am excluded. I hope we can see that we have that in common. With the doctrinal differences, how can we not be so exclusive?

I cannot think of anything else that upsets me. Any thoughts or comments that might provide insight and lead towards a lessening of the tension?

Now as to your belief that it isn’t possible for anyone be found ‘worthy’ before God. I’m wondering if you’ve ever done some research into the Bible to determine if the word worthy is ever used, and, if it is, how it is used? Well I just did a search and found that there are 52 times in the New Testament that the word worthy is used, and in a fair number of instances it Is used to describe a positive and triumphal moral standing of certain men and women before God. Here’s just one of the many verses (I’ve included the following explanatory verse) I could quote.

4 Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.

5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.(Revelation 3 )

One of the things I’ve learned to do over the years is to carefully examine any strongly held opinions and beliefs I might have to determine if they square with and can be amply supported by the scriptures. Now do realize that I can understand why someone might recoil at the word ‘worthy‘ because it is often associated with the ugliness of self-righteousness. Even so, it’s important to understand that the word ‘worthy’ is used in a very positive sense in the scriptures, and when rightly understood how it is applied to the faithful who ‘overcome the world‘ there should be nothing distasteful nor off-putting about it.

Edited June 2, 2020 by teddyaware

CV75 · June 2, 2020

13 hours ago, Navidad said:

No, this is not my lived experience. It is the conclusion of both LDS and non-LDS sociologists and historians. I don't have time right now, but I would be happy to share with you citations. The fact that the LDS church has generally created a sense of the "other" as something less than is not disputed among any sociologists of religion that I know. I would add to that the necessity that in order to be fair one must also see them same in non-LDS Christians who form their identity by being anti-cult or anti anyone they define as not orthodox enough. This is a common characteristic of groups and especially religious groups of the mid to late 19th century in the US. Thanks for your comment.

Thank you. That describes a common characteristic -- through sociological and historical lenses -- of how human nature plays out for individuals and groups, even those striving to emulate the divine nature (godhead), and even further, those with the personal leadership of Christ Himself (as seen in the statements and behavior of the disciples in the New Testament). I think the "lived experience" of grace and charity help us attach divine meaning and significance to what 'other" means.

alter idem · June 2, 2020

13 hours ago, Navidad said:

They were mission and temple presidents and matrons in at least three different countries that I know of. Her husband had an impeccable testimony from all I have been told.

She was 95. Could she have been developing some dementia? That could explain why others were uncomfortable and quiet.

Just so you understand Navidad, what she said, that her own worthiness would depend on her husband's is not something we believe. But elderly people sometimes have muddled thoughts and can be confused at times, even the one's who seem with it. Maybe you could cut your ward members a little more slack, I think if you did, you might enjoy more of a fellowship with them.jmo.

smac97 · June 2, 2020

20 hours ago, Navidad said:

I do not wish to belong to the LDS church. I am not struggling with that. I am not trying to be a citizen of two countries. I don't see our respective faiths as two countries. I see them more perhaps as two states within one country. I am actually quite content with my beliefs and with being first and foremost a Christian - fully and completely a Christian, secondly an Evangelical, third holding the specific and unique beliefs of Anabaptism as expressed in one particular Mennonite community. I do not believe that my faith group is the only anything. We are one branch under the vineship (I just made up that word) of Christ – as is the LDS church (a branch on the vine).

I respect this position.

20 hours ago, Navidad said:

My intent is also to understand better the historic animosity between LDS Christians and non-LDS Christians beginning in New York in 1830 and continuing to this day. I have come to learn it is quite mutual.

Well, no. I don't think that is apt. If you are are suggesting that the 19th-century Mormons gave as much and as good as they got, I'll have to disagree with you there.

20 hours ago, Navidad said:

I want to understand that tension better. Within my own little tiny sphere of influence, I would like to help make it better. I will most likely not succeed however because there are precious few on either side who really want it to be any better.

I can't agree with this, either. We are a missionary church, after all. We would hardly advance the interests of our faith by alienating and accosting prospective investigators of it.

The Church works pretty hard to be a good neighbor, institutionally and on down the line to the ward / family / individual level.

This board is not representative of the normative interactions the Saints have with others. Here we discuss controversial and difficult topics. Here we have frank discussions between faithful members and ardent critics and dissidents. The rhetoric can become heated at times, and that is something that deserves constant attention and course correction. However, in the main the doctrines and teachings of the Church impel us toward being good neighbors and friends. Toward serving others.

20 hours ago, Navidad said:

The twin towers of certainty and persecution meet both groups' (LDS and non-LDS) identity needs. It is complex.

"Non-LDS" feel both "certainty and persecution?" How so?

20 hours ago, Navidad said:

I have no spirit-led desire or interest in assuming a new identity- that of LDS. My identity as a committed Christian, pleasing (for the most part) in God’s sight is enough for me. I hope that settles that issue. I am a student and a friend of the church. I advocate for you when surrounded by hostile and mostly misinformed non-LDS Christians.

Much appreciated!

20 hours ago, Navidad said:

There are some within the LDS community who advocate for me when I am mocked by LDS Christians. I appreciate both.

I am sorry that you are sometimes inadvertently caught in the crossfire.

20 hours ago, Navidad said:

Through my quest to understand I have gained a core of knowledge that seems to be attractive to some in leadership in the church - especially about the LDS church in Mexico and about the LDS/Mormon fundamentalist origins and connections. I would love to hear your thoughts about the mutual tension that exists between the LDS Christian world and the non-LDS Christian world. Can it ever be better? Should it? Will compromises be necessary that very few want to make? What are the appendages (Joseph Smith) or the non-essentials that we shouldn't be fighting about?

The Book of Mormon is a source of tension. So is missionary work. And temple work. And exclusivistic claims of authority. And advocacy of applying the principles of the Restored Gospel in our daily lives. I don't think we can or ought to capitulate on these things. We can make some adjustments, yes. But not capitulation. But I think capitulation is what the critics and dissidents want. Hence we experience . . . tension.

To be sure, there are other sources of tension that can and should be addressed and alleviated. Unkindness. Arrogance. Misrepresentations. These things should have no part in our interactions with each other.

20 hours ago, Navidad said:

2. I must admit I get upset when my LDS friends dwell on being "worthy" by virtue of their affiliation with a specific church within historic Christianity.

Surely some non-Christians get upset with Christans - such as yourself - who feel different from the rest of the world by virtue of their membership within "Christianity." However, is that dislike a sufficient basis for you to capitulate on your devotion to your faith?

20 hours ago, Navidad said:

Its ordinances, practices, unique and special nature enable members and only members to "be worthy" before Christ.

I don't think that's a correct statement of what we believe. D&C 137 comes immediately to mind.

20 hours ago, Navidad said:

I get upset about that because of my passionate belief that none of us are worthy.

I think we are using "worthy" in different contexts. Consider, for example, 2 Thess. 1:

Quote

1. Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:
2. Grace unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
3. We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is meet, because that your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you all toward each other aboundeth;
4. So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure:
5. Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer:
6. Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you.

Verse 5 speaks of being "counted worthy in the kingdom of God." Is there any portion of that accounting that might arise while we are here, living in a fallen world? Is there any way for us to seek and obtain some measure of sanctification? Worthiness before God?

Is there any way we can aspire to worthiness? To "walk worthy of God?" (1 Thess. 2:12)

20 hours ago, Navidad said:

Nor will any of us ever be worthy to merit the atonement of Christ or a position in the celestial kingdom. That is why it is termed a gift. A gift that can never be merited. That is why the Bible is pretty clear that we are declared righteousness, even though we are not. That is God’s gift to us. I feel badly for the 95 year old lady in our ward who was in tears in our Gospel Doctrine class because she wasn't certain she would ever see the celestial kingdom, because that can only be hers based on her husband's worthiness and the quality of their relationship. It broke my heart. There was such silence in the room. Yes, that upset me.

The silence was borne, I think, of both respect for the elderly lady, and perhaps also because of compassion because she is misconstruing the Church's teachings on marriage and the Celestial Kingdom.

20 hours ago, Navidad said:

3. I do get upset when folks on this forum speak to me in the transactional analysis paradigm of parent-child. There are those on the forum who regularly talk down to me. I also get upset when folks on this forum have used LDS slurs at me. These include “son of Cain,” “follower of Baal,” “anti-Mormon,” a pretender and one who plays make-believe. Yes, these epithets upset me.

Understandably so. I apologize if I have been among those who have caused offense.

20 hours ago, Navidad said:

4. Your sincerely held beliefs do not upset me, except when they exclude me. I must admit to that.

Okay. But surely non-Christians can say the same of you and your beliefs. Christians other than the Latter-day Saints also have exclusivistic, but still sincerely held, beliefs that upset others. But surely you will not capitulate on those beliefs because they are upsetting to someone else? Surely there is a better way?

20 hours ago, Navidad said:

I really do not understand why you collectively do not understand that. You collectively and individually certainly get upset when non-LDS Christians exclude you, don’t you?

I think it's more about being misrepresented than excluded. I don't mind at all that we are characterized as not a part of "historic Christianity." We aren't. We are neither Catholic nor Protestant. What we find objectionable, though, is when others misrepresent the core of our faith. When they claim that we do not believe in Jesus Christ. That we are not "Christian" at all.

20 hours ago, Navidad said:

You collectively are in an awkward spot, as I am. You are on the edge of the inside with the broader Christian community.

I'm okay with being on the edge. I just don't want the most fundamental characteristic of our faith to be misrepresented.

20 hours ago, Navidad said:

That is an uncomfortable place to be when your “edgeness” causes you to be excluded. So, it is with me. I am on the edge of the inside of the LDS church. That is my choice as is your edgeness as well. It is not comfortable when you are excluded. It is not comfortable when I am excluded. I hope we can see that we have that in common. With the doctrinal differences, how can we not be so exclusive?

Well, perhaps we could start by allowing reasonable minds to disagree about all sorts of things, including important thinks.

Perhaps we could focus more on what we have in common than what separates us.

Perhaps we could accommodate and allow for differences without resentments.

Perhaps we could let the "Marketplace of Ideas" have greater sway. Let's let each side present their views, and let the "consumers" decide for themselves.

20 hours ago, Navidad said:

I cannot think of anything else that upsets me. Any thoughts or comments that might provide insight and lead towards a lessening of the tension?

Well, let's not let this board be the benchmark by which you measure the discourse amongst the Saints. This is an adversarial board. People with very different worldviews come here to debate controversies and difficulties about the Church and its leaders, members, doctrines, practices, etc. It is not really representative of the day-to-day lives of the Latter-day Saints.

Here, I wear a different hat (compared to my everyday self). The "defender of the faith" hat. Because that's what is needed here. At home, I wear either the "voice of authority/reason" hat or the "keeper of the lid on chaos" hat or the "yes, honey, I'm happy to go to the store for you" hat or the "goofball" hat, depending on the time of day. In court, I wear the "sober lawyer and civil-but-zealous advocate" hat. When I'm speaking privately with a client, I wear the "I'm hear to give you the straight dope and tell you like it is, not like what you want it to be" hat. For my single neighbor down the street dying of pancreatic cancer, I wear the "friend to talk to and ask for help" hat. And so on.

My demeanor in an adversarial setting (in court, or on this board, for example) is going to be fairly different from my regular, everyday demeanor because, well, I'm in an adversarial setting. In court, I want to be cordial and civil, but I cannot do so at the expense of my clients' interests. I cannot capitulate to the other side simply because my viewpoint disagrees with theirs. The same goes with this message board. I really believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is what claims to be. I want to be cordial and civil, but not at the expense of capitulating on the message of the Restored Gospel, even if that message has some things in it that upset others (like the Book of Mormon, exclusivistic claims of restored priesthood authority, etc.).

So perhaps we need to adjust our expectations of what this board does, and does not, represent. We need to get along, and we also need to discuss some difficult, controversial issues. These are compatible goals, provided that we are cordial and civil, have reasonable expectations of each other, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

alter idem · June 2, 2020

11 hours ago, Navidad said:

Thanks Tacenda for your comment. I absolutely love the community in Mormonism. There is no doubt about that. One of the primary reasons is because it reminds me so much of Mennonite community, right down to the family emphasis and more importantly the Snickerdoodles!

My interactions at times with members of the LDS church is indeed like a punch in the stomach. My wife has come home from ward on many occasions in tears. I love her dearly and we will celebrate our fiftieth wedding anniversary this year. She is the most Godly woman I know (not that I am biased) and I hate to see her hurt. I won't go into the specifics, but please just believe me she is a strong Godly woman and not easily hurt. A "punch in the stomach" is a wonderful word image of how we feel after ward sometimes and how I feel at times after a few hours on this forum.

Your comment about feeling and spirit in the meetings is a bit trickier. I very much miss the music in the Mennonite church. I very much miss the quiet sacredness of the sacrament service that is in the Mennonite church. Our ward is incredibly noisy with toddlers running up and down the aisle. Mennonites also have lots of toddlers, but we also have lots of nursery space with speakers from the sanctuary. The LDS sacrament service is special because of the participation of the regular folks. I love the family emphasis. I miss the lack of teaching from the pulpit. Some of our folks go off on tangents; but of course Mennonite bishops and elders do that sometimes too - as do I!!!!!!

Further, I need to explain our presence in the ward in the first place. We live in a community of 1200 people in the high desert of Mexico. I have my choice of two Catholic churches, and a Pentecostal church in our community. All the services are in Spanish. My wife does not speak or understand much Spanish beyond household requirements. It is two hours to the nearest Mennonite church. It is an old order church. Their services are in German and Russian Pennsylvania Dutch. We wouldn't understand a word of the services. That is not an option. We attend many funeral, wedding, quinceneara services in the Catholic church. The priest is a terrific guy - comes to our house often. Fifteen minutes from our town is a historic Mexican colony with two wards: one English and one Spanish. I have been deliberately and consciously studying Mormon history for over twenty years, stemming from my interest in religion and conflict. About ten years ago I knew I needed a better understanding of Mormon doctrine since it and the church's history are inextricably linked.

We retired here from San Diego full-time in 2014. We knew we had a church language problem. When we found out there was an English ward, we were very happy. I, especially was excited about seeing real live LDS folks up close and personal. We showed up one day unannounced. Just about everyone initially assumed we were members who moved to Mexico from the states. Of course it didn't take a week or so to discover we were Mennonites. Fine they said, wonderful candidates for conversion of which there are very few out here in the desert. I soon became infamous, notorious, and an oddity for my knowledge of LDS history, especially Mexican LDS history. We are an anomaly. Some love us, some don't know what to do with us, and some resent us. If the leaders welcome us to participate to the extent allowed what does that say about the need to convert? Some frown when we participate.

One funny event, this past Christmas, our bishop asked my wife to give the sacrament talk on Christmas Sunday. She gave a wonderful talk (of course). Lots of visitors that Sunday, including an area seventy sitting on the stand. He was smiling and nodding through her whole talk. Of course he had no idea she wasn't a member. Neither did the many visitors! Afterwards our ward members got a real kick out of telling the visitors that the wonderful talk was given by our "Mennonite sister!" The bishop told the area! It was quite a lot of fun. I was very proud of her, the bishop for being courageous and confident enough in her to ask her, and the area for not saying to him "You did what?" There is one person on this forum who gets rather upset with me for "bragging" about all the things we do in the ward, including washing toilets. He or she just doesn't understand how emotional it all is for us . . . and I am sure for some of the members of our ward as well.

Our ward is full of LDS blue-bloods by ancestry. We sit behind (of course we have assigned pews) a general authority emeritus who is 92 years old. I am sure you all would recognize his name. He is the kindest and most gracious man to us (besides the bishop) in the whole church. Every week he stands up to greet us and asks me if I am going to sing. If I say no, he demands to know why not and informs me he has rank on everyone there and can use that to get me to sing anytime he wants! What a sweet Godly man!

So yes we love attending the ward despite the tears and unintentional wounds. And of course we are guilty of saying things that are offensive on occasion as well. I hope this all too long response helps you understand our situation better.

Having to drive two hours to a Mennonite church that isn't in english would not be an enjoyable way to spend one's Sunday. It sounds like you've found a nice solution in attending an lds ward. They sound like good people, not perfect by any means and likely set in their ways (that's to be expected where they are and the makeup of the ward) but why not just enjoy what you can from worshipping with them?

If you don't want to make that long drive to your church, I see this as an opportunity for you to work on Christ like love for this imperfect, but trying, group of members. From my own experience, there are often one or two persons like you in a ward, someone who comes but will never be baptized. If the person is friendly and kind, with no chip.on their shoulder, there's no reason they can't find a place within the ward to make friendships and come to feel accepted. Not by all; you'll always have a few who don't 'get' you, but that's when you get to work on that Christ like love and forgiveness. Maybe you can be a lesson, by example, to some of the ward members who need to work on developing this attribute.

Ahab · June 2, 2020

12 hours ago, Navidad said:

Further, I need to explain our presence in the ward in the first place. We live in a community of 1200 people in the high desert of Mexico. I have my choice of two Catholic churches, and a Pentecostal church in our community. All the services are in Spanish. My wife does not speak or understand much Spanish beyond household requirements. It is two hours to the nearest Mennonite church. It is an old order church. Their services are in German and Russian Pennsylvania Dutch. We wouldn't understand a word of the services. That is not an option. We attend many funeral, wedding, quinceneara services in the Catholic church. The priest is a terrific guy - comes to our house often. Fifteen minutes from our town is a historic Mexican colony with two wards: one English and one Spanish. I have been deliberately and consciously studying Mormon history for over twenty years, stemming from my interest in religion and conflict. About ten years ago I knew I needed a better understanding of Mormon doctrine since it and the church's history are inextricably linked.

i think I feel much the same way as you do when I visit my Dad's church, the church I was part of (but in a different city) before I joined what I now know is the true church of Jesus Christ. I call it my Dad's church because he was the main minister/preacher when he attended and when I attended with him when I was living with him. He has now passed away and is beyond the veil now. But his wife and my brother and his family still meet with that church and in the past when I went to their town to visit them I attended that church with them. Mainly because I wanted my wife to see him preach and get a better sense of the man who helped to raise me. A man I still believe was a very good Christian. So I would sing their songs\hymns with them, and pray with them, and partake of their sacrament/communion emblems with them, even after I had come to realize they were not members of the true church of Jesus Christ. I did and still do believe all of them are true Christians, though, trying in their own way, as best as they know how I think, to follow Jesus Christ. They just haven't entered into a covenant with him, by allowing our Lord's authorized administers to baptize them and confirm them as members of our Lord's church. So they remain in some other church, believing that church is the true church of Jesus Christ.

So I think I know at least a little of how you feel. I can see how people are divided even though they try to be good Christians. I can see how many people greatly underestimate the sneakiness of Satan, unaware or just not realizing when they are being duped. How he uses counterfeit, for example, conning people with close but not true ideas and organizations, leading people away from the truth or to think what is counterfeit is really the truth. A master of subterfuge. Whispering to people something like "that is right" when really it is wrong and is not right. He misleads people in so many ways and it is amazing how so many people fall due to his tactics. But even with him trying to mislead us we can still come to learn what is really the truth and the one and only true church of Christ.

Navidad · June 2, 2020

5 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Now as to your belief that it isn’t possible for anyone be found ‘worthy’ before God. I’m wondering if you’ve ever done some research into the Bible to determine if the word worthy is ever used, and, if it is, how it is used? Well I just did a search and found that there are 52 times in the New Testament that the word worthy is used, and in a fair number of instances it Is used to describe a positive and triumphal moral standing of certain men and women before God. Here’s just one of the many verses (I’ve included the following explanatory verse) I could quote.

4 Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.

5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.(Revelation 3 )

One of the things I’ve learned to do over the years is to carefully examine any strongly held opinions and beliefs I might have to determine if they square with and can be amply supported by the scriptures. Now do realize that I can understand why someone might recoil at the word ‘worthy‘ because it is often associated with the ugliness of self-righteousness. Even so, it’s important to understand that the word ‘worthy’ is used in a very positive sense in the scriptures, and when rightly understood how it is applied to the faithful who ‘overcome the world‘ there should be nothing distasteful nor off-putting about it.

Hi my friend - just a point of clarification that needs to be made. It is most likely my fault in my use of words. The word for worthy that you are quoting is the word axios that means more or less deserving of something. It is used in Romans 1 to indicate those worthy of death! It is used in many contexts in the New Testament and is the word that is at times translated "worthy." It does not however describe worthy as I am using the word. In my mind I am using the word worthy in a different context, that of being righteous. - the word dikaios - a whole different word. I think the Bible teaches that none of us by our deeds ever become righteous. We are declared righteous because our sin is covered by the blood of Christ. Christ is righteous - the Father declares us righteous because we have taken upon ourselves the name of Christ. It is used of Christ in the New Testament and of the regenerate man who has taken on himself the righteousness of the Christ. In passages prior to Christ's death, it is also used of the righteousness obtained by adherence to the law. It carries the connotation of being holy. Those who wrote the New Testament carried over the word from its Jewish context to refer to those redeemed by Christ. So when I hear my LDS friends talking about becoming worthy I think in the dikaios sense - that of being holy or righteous and the Romans 3 absolute declaration that none are righteous (holy) no not one. . That may not be fair of me because you may using the word in a completely different (axios) context! That is why I like this kind of dialogue. best to you.

Navidad · June 2, 2020

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

So perhaps we need to adjust our expectations of what this board does, and does not, represent. We need to get along, and we also need to discuss some difficult, controversial issues. These are compatible goals, provided that we are cordial and civil, have reasonable expectations of each other, and so on.

Greetings - Thanks so much for your exquisite post. I won't take time to go through it point by point. I will just make a few comments -

I am not sure who gave or took more in the 19th century. I would simply suggest that the record indicates that both took and both gave. The same debate is often used of the Cristero period of Mexican history. The Catholics believe they only "took." Well, that isn't completely accurate. They gave pretty well too. I won't debate it with you because I don't think we have enough data to accurately determine the answer to that. There was enough intimidation, threatening, stealing, putting down, military threats and actions, mocking, demeaning, certainty (an absolute form of violence that we don't often think about) to go around. There was mutual enmity all the way around. Being Mennonite I don't believe violence is only physical. Words do hurt! My perspective is not to decide who did more.....just that both were active in their hostility towards the other. Several sociologists and historians have looked into that . It is fascinating history. Scholars like Armand Mauss are faithful members and have done amazing studies on this issue. The same is true of both sides of the tensions between Mormons and Catholic Mestizos here in Mexico. I prefer to see culpability all the way around.

I have said it here before to the chagrin of many, but will say it again - I truly believe that many members of the LDS church and the non-LDS churches have such an idealized self (using a Rogerian term) about their church that they struggle with accurate self examination. This is where exclusivity becomes a weapon mightier than the sword. Someone here described it yesterday as a punch to the stomach. That is a great word picture and describes it to perfection. Religious faithful through out history have punched their designated other in the stomach. It is a small journey from doctrine to dogma to duty to destruction. All faiths including Mormonism, Catholicism, Calvinism, and others have walked that path.

Please keep in mind that a number of non-LDS Christian faiths do not consider themselves Protestant or Catholic. There is nothing unique to the LDS self-concept in that regard.

You questioned how non-LDS Christians could have an identity built on persecution, implying (sort of) that is the exclusive domain of the LDS church. I invite you to consider the history of religious conflict. Thousands of Anabaptists were killed for their faith from the 16th through the mid-twentieth century. Perhaps as many as 50,000 Mennonites were killed or starved in the Ukraine in the early 1930s. It was a complicated situation with non-religious factors included, but it was a terrible time remembered with great grief by Mennonites, especially in Canada. Thousands of Catholics were killed from 1923 to 1936 in Mexico. Of course they fought back too; so the death toll always rises. Various Protestant groups experienced deaths at the hands of "others" since the 16th century. I won't even go into the persecutions and violence within and between non-Christian religions

I agree with you about our using worthy in different ways. Please read my reply above. That is why I appreciate this opportunity to dialogue.

I think your comment about the fact that it doesn't make sense for a proselytizing group to speak badly of those they are trying to convert. I couldn't agree more. It doesn't make sense, but I just don't think my LDS friends often are aware of when they punch in the stomach of the non-LDS Christian. Much to the delight and scorn of some LDS folks I have talked to I say that I wish the Church mission department would let me conduct a session with the prospective missionaries to help them see how they are perceived by the very ones they want to convert by their words and actions. I would do so to help them avoid the negative reaction. But that isn't going to happen! This is one area that my experience on this forum has taught me a lot. The antennas of the LDS member are finely tuned to hear offense and insult. Their own awareness of their words and attitudes are simply turned off. Once in Elders Quorum the teacher asked the men to list what they think offends the non-LDS Christian about LDS Christians. They named polygamy, the ban on the priesthood, the Book of Mormon, and the foibles of Joseph Smith. I raised my hand and gave a totally different list. The teacher, a wise man smiled. A number of the men were offended that I would suggest such things. Several came up afterwards and thanked me for my "reality check."

Oh, and one more clarification. You and others on this forum have often misunderstood my position on salvation, eternity, and exclusivity in a generic sense. It is important for me to state without hesitation that I am a believer in the wideness in God's mercy. I do not believe that only Christians will dwell with God for all eternity. So, no I am not exclusive as a Christian. There are a number of viewpoints in Evangelicalism in this regard. I truly do not know what kind of faith or how much faith is necessary for eternal life. Certainly the New Testament offers examples of different kinds of faith being pleasing to Christ. So, I am not in the business of judging. That is way above my pay grade. I find it a fascinating subject for study. Not enough has been written about heaven and eternal destiny, especially about the non-Christian. I read once that over 150 billion people have lived at one time or another on earth. That is a staggering number. The resurrection to final judgment will be one busy time. Heaven must be ginormous, considering that the entire earth only holds 7 billion, and that not very comfortably. Some non-LDS Christians might dismiss my position by calling me a universalist. Nope....not that either.

That is about it. Your post has given me a lot to respond to. I hope I have done so in a manner that is not offensive. Take care.

Robert F. Smith · June 2, 2020

On 6/1/2020 at 12:36 PM, Navidad said:

On another thread it was noted that some things on the forum that are said seem to upset me. ....................... even if it means I might be hurt or upset. There is long history with Mormonism of exclusion and persecution ..................... I won't whine or proselytize. I already believe you all are fully Christian and it really doesn't matter to me which branch you are on the vine. .................................

This false equivalency of the LDS Church with the other churches and religions is a constant theme with you, Phil. Unlike many other religious groups, the LDS Church has not been persecuting others. As in the days of Paul the Apostle, the LDS Church has suffered enormous persecution, especially at the hands of the evangelical community. Paul frankly admitted his vicious persecution of early Jewish Christians, before his conversion on the road to Damascus. You seem heedless of the evidence and the lived experience of members of the LDS Church.

Quote

1. I am trying to understand the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. .................................

I do not wish to belong to the LDS church. ...................... I do not believe that my faith group is the only anything. We are one branch under the vineship ........... of Christ – as is the LDS church ............

The LDS Church is self-defined as unique. It does not claim to be just another denomination or branch of Christianity. I am not bothered at all by your desire to remain outside the LDS faith community as an observer, but the fragility of your ego is a major impediment to actual, respectful communication. I spent many years attending and studying non-LDS churches, and never once responded to their beliefs with contempt and false claims against them. You seem to do both. Why?

Quote

....................... the historic animosity between LDS Christians and non-LDS Christians ................................I would like to help make it better. I will most likely not succeed however because there are precious few on either side who really want it to be any better. The twin towers of certainty and persecution meet both groups' (LDS and non-LDS) identity needs................................

Again, why the false equivalency. It is not the LDS who show animosity to other religions, and it is not LDS who actively persecute others. That historic animosity you speak of has been unidirectional.

Quote

2. I must admit I get upset when my LDS friends dwell on being "worthy" by virtue of their affiliation with a specific church within historic Christianity. Its ordinances, practices, unique and special nature enable members and only members to "be worthy" before Christ. I get upset about that because of my passionate belief that none of us are worthy. Nor will any of us ever be worthy to merit the atonement of Christ or a .................... It broke my heart. There was such silence in the room. Yes, that upset me.

You do not understand LDS theology at all, Phil, and it is comments such as this on being worthy which are so clearly out of touch with LDS thinking or behavior which indicate your agenda. You need to stop telling us what we believe. If you want to know, then ask. The immediate reply you will get is that we don't have any such ridiculous notion of being worthy. We do have in our hymnbook a phrase "worthy the Lamb." You might want to reflect on why you have such animosity toward LDS people.

Quote

3. I do get upset when folks on this forum speak to me in the transactional analysis paradigm of parent-child. There are those on the forum who regularly talk down to me. I also get upset when folks on this forum have used LDS slurs at me. These include “son of Cain,” “follower of Baal,” “anti-Mormon,” a pretender and one who plays make-believe. Yes, these epithets upset me.

If you believe that all those slurs have been thrown at you, well, Phil, it must be true, although I can't recall such nonsense. Are "Son of Cain" and "Follower of Baal" actually LDS slurs? Sound more like Mennonite slurs to me, because the only person I have heard use them is a Mennonite named Phil. Sounds like projection to me, Phil.

Quote

4. Your sincerely held beliefs do not upset me, except when they exclude me. I must admit to that. I really do not understand why you collectively do not understand that. You collectively and individually certainly get upset when non-LDS Christians exclude you, don’t you? You collectively are in an awkward spot, as I am. You are on the edge of the inside with the broader Christian community.

Sounds like more projection of your own feelings on to us, Phil. I don't feel excluded at all, and I don't meet any fellow Latter-day Saints who feel excluded. Indeed, we do not consider ourselves as part of the broader Christian community, except in the most generic sense. Your paranoia is self-exclusionary. So you feel awkward. So what? You need to man up and accept your self-chosen predicament. The LDS Church did not create your dilemma.

Quote

That is an uncomfortable place to be when your “edgeness” causes you to be excluded. So, it is with me. I am on the edge of the inside of the LDS church. That is my choice as is your edgeness as well. It is not comfortable when you are excluded. It is not comfortable when I am excluded. I hope we can see that we have that in common. With the doctrinal differences, how can we not be so exclusive?

I cannot think of anything else that upsets me. Any thoughts or comments that might provide insight and lead towards a lessening of the tension?

I don't feel excluded, nor do my fellow Latter-day Saints. Projecting your own feelings of exclusion onto LDS members is wrong, and stems from your false notion of equivalency -- due to being on the edge of the inside of the LDS Church, which is your personal choice. Why are you blaming others for your own choice, Phil? The blame lies squarely on your shoulders, Phil. You need to accept that in manly fashion, and with a smile on your face. :pirate:

Edited June 2, 2020 by Robert F. Smith

Calm · June 2, 2020

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Are "Son of Cain" and "Follower of Baal" actually LDS slurs?

Mentioned here below only by Navidad, but it is " son of Canaan". There are no other uses showing on the board...which means if those two were actually used, mods removed them quite quickly. I have never heard their use in church or by church members, though I assume it might be a local variation. The only mentions on the Church website of "follower of Baal" are to the scripture story and people in it.

Anti-mormon is often used as a slur by Saints unfortunately. Others use it strictly to mean someone who wants the Church destroyed...of which there are some. I think we should be much more careful in our usage of it as a community and limit it to individuals who do want the Church gone.

If there is someone you remember calling you either son of Canaan/Cain or son of Baal, please name who it was and when so they can explain why in the world they said such things. If someone else remembers, please speak up. I think pointing to these as LDS slurs is inaccurate and therefore a distraction in an otherwise generally valid complaint (I remember Navidad being accused of stuff, just not those two terms) that can be discussed, but it needs to be placed in proper context...such as if a poster did use those two terms, they are not typical Saints and their agenda quite possibly should not be seen in the context of our faith community, but something else.

Edited June 2, 2020 by Calm

JamesBYoung · June 2, 2020

thank youi, navidad. much to think about.

do understand that Mormons, particularly the LDS now identified as Church of Jesus Christ, have embraced since 1830 a parochial position reinforced with a persecution complex. While many do not in the 21st century, many still do feel that way.

President Nelson has said that the endowment is about family salvation in the eternities, meaning only worth LDS who have gone through the Temple and kept their covenants will have family units.

Those who do not take the endowment and keep the covenants will be single separated from family bindings.

Such an elitist privileging tends to make some of the LDS feel very unique and blessed.

Ahab · June 2, 2020

9 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

thank youi, navidad. much to think about.

do understand that Mormons, particularly the LDS now identified as Church of Jesus Christ, have embraced since 1830 a parochial position reinforced with a persecution complex. While many do not in the 21st century, many still do feel that way.

President Nelson has said that the endowment is about family salvation in the eternities, meaning only worth LDS who have gone through the Temple and kept their covenants will have family units.

Those who do not take the endowment and keep the covenants will be single separated from family bindings.

Such an elitist privileging tends to make some of the LDS feel very unique and blessed.

I like to ponder about how that will work. I'm planning to do the sealing work for everyone in my family, or at least make sure it is done, so that I will be sealed to all of them. Which I think will mean that I will be able to visit them even if they are not able to go to where I am to visit me. Since my part of the deal will be done, and I will be entitled to those blessings. Probably just short visits, like it is now when I go to visit my family even though they have not come to visit me.

Navidad · June 2, 2020

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This false equivalency of the LDS Church with the other churches and religions is a constant theme with you, Phil. Unlike many other religious groups, the LDS Church has not been persecuting others. As in the days of Paul the Apostle, the LDS Church has suffered enormous persecution, especially at the hands of the evangelical community. Paul frankly admitted his vicious persecution of early Jewish Christians, before his conversion on the road to Damascus. You seem heedless of the evidence and the lived experience of members of the LDS Church.

The LDS Church is self-defined as unique. It does not claim to be just another denomination or branch of Christianity. I am not bothered at all by your desire to remain outside the LDS faith community as an observer, but the fragility of your ego is a major impediment to actual, respectful communication. I spent many years attending and studying non-LDS churches, and never once responded to their beliefs with contempt and false claims against them. You seem to do both. Why?

Again, why the false equivalency. It is not the LDS who show animosity to other religions, and it is not LDS who actively persecute others. That historic animosity you speak of has been unidirectional.

You do not understand LDS theology at all, Phil, and it is comments such as this on being worthy which are so clearly out of touch with LDS thinking or behavior which indicate your agenda. You need to stop telling us what we believe. If you want to know, then ask. The immediate reply you will get is that we don't have any such ridiculous notion of being worthy. We do have in our hymnbook a phrase "worthy the Lamb." You might want to reflect on why you have such animosity toward LDS people.

If you believe that all those slurs have been thrown at you, well, Phil, it must be true, although I can't recall such nonsense. Are "Son of Cain" and "Follower of Baal" actually LDS slurs? Sound more like Mennonite slurs to me, because the only person I have heard use them is a Mennonite named Phil. Sounds like projection to me, Phil.

Sounds like more projection of your own feelings on to us, Phil. I don't feel excluded at all, and I don't meet any fellow Latter-day Saints who feel excluded. Indeed, we do not consider ourselves as part of the broader Christian community, except in the most generic sense. Your paranoia is self-exclusionary. So you feel awkward. So what? You need to man up and accept your self-chosen predicament. The LDS Church did not create your dilemma.

I don't feel excluded, nor do my fellow Latter-day Saints. Projecting your own feelings of exclusion onto LDS members is wrong, and stems from your false notion of equivalency -- due to being on the edge of the inside of the LDS Church, which is your personal choice. Why are you blaming others for your own choice, Phil? The blame lies squarely on your shoulders, Phil. You need to accept that in manly fashion, and with a smile on your face.

Apparently we disagree on many things. That is ok. I reject your revisionist history of the church. I also reject your denial (yes it was you) who called me a fraud, a follower of Baal, a son of Cain (or Canaan) and an anti-Mormon on this very forum. Perhaps when you apologize for that, we can dialogue. I am not projecting. You are in denial of how cruel you were to me prior to discovering that my claims of relationship with folks in the church were true. Have you forgotten?

I am sorry to have bit into your venom towards me again. I was so enjoying this thread. More than a year ago I actually had to privately message you and give you the names of the folks I have worked with in the church. Please check back through your private messages. You then became much kinder to me and I appreciated it very much. You are a knowledgeable man. I respect that very much. I deeply regret how your treated me some time ago. It appears it is beginning again. I am sorry and I apologize for having offended you so.

Edited June 2, 2020 by Navidad

Robert F. Smith · June 2, 2020

35 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Apparently we disagree on many things. That is ok. I reject your revisionist history of the church. I also reject your denial (yes it was you) who called me a fraud, a follower of Baal, a son of Cain (or Canaan) and an anti-Mormon on this very forum. Perhaps when you apologize for that, we can dialogue. I am not projecting. You are in denial of how cruel you were to me prior to discovering that my claims of relationship with folks in the church were true. Have you forgotten?

Well, of course, you are an anti-Mormon. Why else would you continuously make false statements about LDS beliefs? However, I don't recall calling you a follower of Baal or a son of Cain (which is not the same as Canaan, although those who do not know the Bible think they are related). CFR, Phil. Cite the source in which I said that. Those are phrases which I never hear in the LDS community. That is a reflection of your hatred.

35 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am sorry to have bit into your venom towards me again. I was so enjoying this thread. More than a year ago I actually had to privately message you and give you the names of the folks I have worked with in the church. Please check back through your private messages. You then became much kinder to me and I appreciated it very much. You are a knowledgeable man. I respect that very much. I deeply regret how your treated me some time ago. It appears it is beginning again. I am sorry and I apologize for having offended you so.

When you deliberately make blatantly false statements, Phil, I am going to call you on them. When your comments are truthful and restrained, you will get nothing but praise from me. You do not get a pass to prevaricate.

Robert F. Smith · June 2, 2020

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Mentioned here below only by Navidad, but it is " son of Canaan". There are no other uses showing on the board...which means if those two were actually used, mods removed them quite quickly. I have never heard their use in church or by church members, though I assume it might be a local variation. The only mentions on the Church website of "follower of Baal" are to the scripture story and people in it.

I can be a very harsh critic of the Latter-day Saint community, when justified, and I have had some negative comments to make about my fellow Saints from time to time, even on this board. However, when I make such statements I am always prepared to back them up with substantive facts and documentation. Lashing out in anger and frustration at members of another, alien community, however, is always fraught with risk. I knew we were dealing with a case of projection, when some of Phil's odd terms were put in LDS mouths.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Anti-mormon is often used as a slur by Saints unfortunately. Others use it strictly to mean someone who wants the Church destroyed...of which there are some. I think we should be much more careful in our usage of it as a community and limit it to individuals who do want the Church gone.

The term "anti-Mormon" has been around for a long time, and Dr Richard Mouw harshly criticized his own fellow evangelicals for lying about "the beliefs and practices of the Mormon community. Indeed, let me state it bluntly to the LDS folks here this evening, we have sinned against you." He wasn't kidding: he had been a personal witness to such chicanery when he was a youth attending a lecture by Walter Martin. He was ashamed and embarrassed by Martin's treatment of Mormons. I'm not talking about professional, documented criticism of the LDS Church. In fact, one of the finest, strongest critics of our faith is Dr Rob Bowman, who used to engage our discussions on this board. I have never found him to make a false claim against us, while at the same time professionally calling the tenets of our faith into serious question. He is the perfect gentleman about it. Phil could profitably take a cue from him.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

If there is someone you remember calling you either son of Canaan/Cain or son of Baal, please name who it was and when so they can explain why in the world they said such things. If someone else remembers, please speak up. I think pointing to these as LDS slurs is inaccurate and therefore a distraction in an otherwise generally valid complaint (I remember Navidad being accused of stuff, just not those two terms) that can be discussed, but it needs to be placed in proper context...such as if a poster did use those two terms, they are not typical Saints and their agenda quite possibly should not be seen in the context of our faith community, but something else.......................

I second that emotion.

Navidad · June 2, 2020

17 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I can be a very harsh critic of the Latter-day Saint community, when justified, and I have had some negative comments to make about my fellow Saints from time to time, even on this board. However, when I make such statements I am always prepared to back them up with substantive facts and documentation. Lashing out in anger and frustration at members of another, alien community, however, is always fraught with risk. I knew we were dealing with a case of projection, when some of Phil's odd terms were put in LDS mouths.

The term "anti-Mormon" has been around for a long time, and Dr Richard Mouw harshly criticized his own fellow evangelicals for lying about "the beliefs and practices of the Mormon community. Indeed, let me state it bluntly to the LDS folks here this evening, we have sinned against you." He wasn't kidding: he had been a personal witness to such chicanery when he was a youth attending a lecture by Walter Martin. He was ashamed and embarrassed by Martin's treatment of Mormons. I'm not talking about professional, documented criticism of the LDS Church. In fact, one of the finest, strongest critics of our faith is Dr Rob Bowman, who used to engage our discussions on this board. I have never found him to make a false claim against us, while at the same time professionally calling the tenets of our faith into serious question. He is the perfect gentleman about it. Phil could profitably take a cue from him.

I second that emotion.

I have a copy of the personal message I sent to you. I just read it. It is still in my forum mailbox. I am sure it is in yours as well. Please look for it. It is dated March 9, 2019. I am happy to send it to you again personally so this does not become a circus. I may have a copy of your post; but I am not sure. I did not routinely copy posts that were directed at me. It was apparently in early March 2019. I have no interest in debating you or embarrassing you. You clearly don't remember. It probably was not a big deal to you. So you have forgotten. I don't want to ruin this thread or have it shut down because of this. I will simply ignore your posts. I won't ask others who communicated with me about your venom to vouch for the truth of what I am saying. That would accomplish nothing. I do not wish to be divisive in any way. My best to you.

Edited June 2, 2020 by Navidad

Navidad · June 2, 2020

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Mentioned here below only by Navidad, but it is " son of Canaan". There are no other uses showing on the board...which means if those two were actually used, mods removed them quite quickly. I have never heard their use in church or by church members, though I assume it might be a local variation. The only mentions on the Church website of "follower of Baal" are to the scripture story and people in it.

Anti-mormon is often used as a slur by Saints unfortunately. Others use it strictly to mean someone who wants the Church destroyed...of which there are some. I think we should be much more careful in our usage of it as a community and limit it to individuals who do want the Church gone.

If there is someone you remember calling you either son of Canaan/Cain or son of Baal, please name who it was and when so they can explain why in the world they said such things. If someone else remembers, please speak up. I think pointing to these as LDS slurs is inaccurate and therefore a distraction in an otherwise generally valid complaint (I remember Navidad being accused of stuff, just not those two terms) that can be discussed, but it needs to be placed in proper context...such as if a poster did use those two terms, they are not typical Saints and their agenda quite possibly should not be seen in the context of our faith community, but something else.

Hi Calm: Thanks for your post. I tried, but the forum does not search past a year ago. Robert Smith is demanding I show him his post. I can't do that because the search capacity only goes back a year apparently. I do have copies of personal messages he and I exchanged after that harsh post, but I see no point in posting them. He has apparently forgotten his invective towards me and our mutual exchange of personal messages thereafter. I have a feeling this thread is now destroyed. I regret that very much. It was wonderful to be able to clarify my positions vis a viz the Church.

Hamba Tuhan · June 3, 2020

26 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hi Calm: Thanks for your post. I tried, but the forum does not search past a year ago.

It is easy to search back many years. Just type 'mormondialogue.org' into Google, followed by whatever specific terms you're searching for. I just did that using both phrases under discussion, and you're the only person ever to have posted them on this forum. (Well, since it changed platforms quite a few years ago and lost its archives. I just did a search on a common phrase and got results from July 2012.)

ETA: I found the post you're probably looking for. It doesn't say quite what you remember:

Quote

It is nonsense to believe that God does not choose those He wishes to represent Him. From Abraham through His chosen people Israel, to the apostles chosen by Jesus Himself, it is clear that specific persons are God's formal representatives, and this is true throughout Holy Writ. Israel had to choose between Elijah and the priests of Baal. So, Navidad, you sound like a disappointed Canaanite who wants Baalism to have the full and equal approval of God. Such has never happened, and never will. It only seems unfair to those who do not know the economy of God.

Your reaction:

Quote

I was hoping for a discussion, not being called a priest of Baal, a Canaanite ... I may be a "wimbling willow" at times, but I am never a "disappointed Canaanite" or a "priest of Baal." When I hear the whistlers and whittlers it is time to move on.

Edited June 3, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

JamesBYoung · June 3, 2020

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

I like to ponder about how that will work. I'm planning to do the sealing work for everyone in my family, or at least make sure it is done, so that I will be sealed to all of them. Which I think will mean that I will be able to visit them even if they are not able to go to where I am to visit me. Since my part of the deal will be done, and I will be entitled to those blessings. Probably just short visits, like it is now when I go to visit my family even though they have not come to visit me.

I hope that happens for you.

Navidad · June 3, 2020

54 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It is easy to search back many years. Just type 'mormondialogue.org' into Google, followed by whatever specific terms you're searching for. I just did that using both phrases under discussion, and you're the only person ever to have posted them on this forum. (Well, since it changed platforms quite a few years ago and lost its archives. I just did a search on a common phrase and got results from July 2012.)

ETA: I found the post you're probably looking for. It doesn't say quite what you remember:

Your reaction:

Thanks Hamba for the tip. I look forward to digging into it.

smac97 · June 3, 2020

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Greetings - Thanks so much for your exquisite post. I won't take time to go through it point by point. I will just make a few comments -

I am not sure who gave or took more in the 19th century.

Whom did the 19th-century Latter-day Saints persecute?

There were some difficult issues with the Indians, but those were not religious disputes.

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

I would simply suggest that the record indicates that both took and both gave.

I question the notion that there was symmetry there. The Latter-day Saints were heavily persecuted for their religious beliefs. I don't think "the record" indicates that they reciprocated such things.

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

The same debate is often used of the Cristero period of Mexican history. The Catholics believe they only "took." Well, that isn't completely accurate. They gave pretty well too. I won't debate it with you because I don't think we have enough data to accurately determine the answer to that. There was enough intimidation, threatening, stealing, putting down, military threats and actions, mocking, demeaning, certainty (an absolute form of violence that we don't often think about) to go around. There was mutual enmity all the way around. Being Mennonite I don't believe violence is only physical. Words do hurt! My perspective is not to decide who did more.....just that both were active in their hostility towards the other. Several sociologists and historians have looked into that . It is fascinating history. Scholars like Armand Mauss are faithful members and have done amazing studies on this issue. The same is true of both sides of the tensions between Mormons and Catholic Mestizos here in Mexico. I prefer to see culpability all the way around.

Yes. I prefer to largely abstain from judging people I've never met, who were often in very difficult circumstances.

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

I have said it here before to the chagrin of many, but will say it again - I truly believe that many members of the LDS church and the non-LDS churches have such an idealized self (using a Rogerian term) about their church that they struggle with accurate self examination. This is where exclusivity becomes a weapon mightier than the sword. Someone here described it yesterday as a punch to the stomach. That is a great word picture and describes it to perfection. Religious faithful through out history have punched their designated other in the stomach. It is a small journey from doctrine to dogma to duty to destruction. All faiths including Mormonism, Catholicism, Calvinism, and others have walked that path.

I'm not sure what you mean here. We have critics and dissidents constantly pointing out our weaknesses, errors, flaws, etc. I may have had an idealized perception of the Church when I was much younger, but since then I've served in the military, served a mission, gotten married, had kids, practiced law in Utah County for 15+ years, served many years in callings requiring me to attend disciplinary councils, and so on. I tossed the rose-colored glasses a long time ago.

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Please keep in mind that a number of non-LDS Christian faiths do not consider themselves Protestant or Catholic. There is nothing unique to the LDS self-concept in that regard.

Latter-day Saints are admittedly not alone in being mischaracterized as not being Christian (against their objections).

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Quote

Quote

The twin towers of certainty and persecution meet both groups' (LDS and non-LDS) identity needs. It is complex.

"Non-LDS" feel both "certainty and persecution?" How so?

You questioned how non-LDS Christians could have an identity built on persecution, implying (sort of) that is the exclusive domain of the LDS church.

Well, no.

First, note what you said above, which was about "LDS and non-LDS." I did not know you were speaking of "non-LDS Christians."

Second, my question was not meant to imply that "certainty and persecution" are exclusively our domain.

Third, I'm not sure what you mean by either "certainty" or "persecution," hence my question.

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

I invite you to consider the history of religious conflict. Thousands of Anabaptists were killed for their faith from the 16th through the mid-twentieth century. Perhaps as many as 50,000 Mennonites were killed or starved in the Ukraine in the early 1930s. It was a complicated situation with non-religious factors included, but it was a terrible time remembered with great grief by Mennonites, especially in Canada. Thousands of Catholics were killed from 1923 to 1936 in Mexico. Of course they fought back too; so the death toll always rises. Various Protestant groups experienced deaths at the hands of "others" since the 16th century. I won't even go into the persecutions and violence within and between non-Christian religions.

Yes, certainly other religious groups have also been persecuted for their beliefs. I freely acknowledge that.

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

I think your comment about the fact that it doesn't make sense for a proselytizing group to speak badly of those they are trying to convert. I couldn't agree more. It doesn't make sense, but I just don't think my LDS friends often are aware of when they punch in the stomach of the non-LDS Christian.

I wonder how often this happens.

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Much to the delight and scorn of some LDS folks I have talked to I say that I wish the Church mission department would let me conduct a session with the prospective missionaries to help them see how they are perceived by the very ones they want to convert by their words and actions. I would do so to help them avoid the negative reaction. But that isn't going to happen!

That may be more a matter of bureacracy than anything else.

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

This is one area that my experience on this forum has taught me a lot. The antennas of the LDS member are finely tuned to hear offense and insult.

I dunno. The offenses and insults are pretty loud. Kinda hard to not hear them.

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Their own awareness of their words and attitudes are simply turned off. Once in Elders Quorum the teacher asked the men to list what they think offends the non-LDS Christian about LDS Christians. They named polygamy, the ban on the priesthood, the Book of Mormon, and the foibles of Joseph Smith. I raised my hand and gave a totally different list.

What was the list?

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Oh, and one more clarification. You and others on this forum have often misunderstood my position on salvation, eternity, and exclusivity in a generic sense. It is important for me to state without hesitation that I am a believer in the wideness in God's mercy. I do not believe that only Christians will dwell with God for all eternity. So, no I am not exclusive as a Christian.

Hmm. I'm curious about your assessment of John 14:6 ("Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."), Acts 4:12 ("Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."), 1 Tim. 2:5, John 3:16, 18, 36, 1 John 5:11-12, 1 John 2:23, Matthew 11:27, and the the many other scriptures that seem to character Christ as the sole means of salvation.

In any event, I think we can get along even though we disagree about this important topic. Yes?

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

There are a number of viewpoints in Evangelicalism in this regard. I truly do not know what kind of faith or how much faith is necessary for eternal life. Certainly the New Testament offers examples of different kinds of faith being pleasing to Christ. So, I am not in the business of judging. That is way above my pay grade.

I think we should all made that concession

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

I find it a fascinating subject for study. Not enough has been written about heaven and eternal destiny, especially about the non-Christian. I read once that over 150 billion people have lived at one time or another on earth. That is a staggering number. The resurrection to final judgment will be one busy time. Heaven must be ginormous, considering that the entire earth only holds 7 billion, and that not very comfortably. Some non-LDS Christians might dismiss my position by calling me a universalist. Nope....not that either.

I have long appreciated the doctrines of the Church that touch on this subject. Salvation is truely available to all who want it.

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

That is about it. Your post has given me a lot to respond to. I hope I have done so in a manner that is not offensive. Take care.

Thanks. You too.

-Smac

teddyaware · June 3, 2020

7 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hi my friend - just a point of clarification that needs to be made. It is most likely my fault in my use of words. The word for worthy that you are quoting is the word axios that means more or less deserving of something. It is used in Romans 1 to indicate those worthy of death! It is used in many contexts in the New Testament and is the word that is at times translated "worthy." It does not however describe worthy as I am using the word. In my mind I am using the word worthy in a different context, that of being righteous. - the word dikaios - a whole different word. I think the Bible teaches that none of us by our deeds ever become righteous. We are declared righteous because our sin is covered by the blood of Christ. Christ is righteous - the Father declares us righteous because we have taken upon ourselves the name of Christ. It is used of Christ in the New Testament and of the regenerate man who has taken on himself the righteousness of the Christ. In passages prior to Christ's death, it is also used of the righteousness obtained by adherence to the law. It carries the connotation of being holy. Those who wrote the New Testament carried over the word from its Jewish context to refer to those redeemed by Christ. So when I hear my LDS friends talking about becoming worthy I think in the dikaios sense - that of being holy or righteous and the Romans 3 absolute declaration that none are righteous (holy) no not one. . That may not be fair of me because you may using the word in a completely different (axios) context! That is why I like this kind of dialogue. best to you.

All men and women have the divinely mandated responsibility to strive diligently in order to obtain the fullness of the blessings of salvation made available to them by virtue of the atoning sacrifice of Christ. The infinite and eternal atonement of Christ provides not only for a remission of sins but also for endowments of spiritual enlightenment and mighty power that enable the faithful to overcome the fallen nature and live lives of true holiness. Paul explains this process beautifully.

12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.

13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,

14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. (Phil 3)

Those who faithfully follow the above admonition of Paul, and eventually overcome the world through faith, will be counted worthy to obtain the fulness of God’s blessings of salvation, including the right to sit as rulers upon his very throne of eternal power throughout eternity.

Edited June 3, 2020 by teddyaware

Navidad · June 3, 2020

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Whom did the 19th-century Latter-day Saints persecute?

There were some difficult issues with the Indians, but those were not religious disputes.

I question the notion that there was symmetry there. The Latter-day Saints were heavily persecuted for their religious beliefs. I don't think "the record" indicates that they reciprocated such things.

Yes. I prefer to largely abstain from judging people I've never met, who were often in very difficult circumstances.

I'm not sure what you mean here. We have critics and dissidents constantly pointing out our weaknesses, errors, flaws, etc. I may have had an idealized perception of the Church when I was much younger, but since then I've served in the military, served a mission, gotten married, had kids, practiced law in Utah County for 15+ years, served many years in callings requiring me to attend disciplinary councils, and so on. I tossed the rose-colored glasses a long time ago.

Latter-day Saints are admittedly not alone in being mischaracterized as not being Christian (against their objections).

Well, no.

First, note what you said above, which was about "LDS and non-LDS." I did not know you were speaking of "non-LDS Christians."

Second, my question was not meant to imply that "certainty and persecution" are exclusively our domain.

Third, I'm not sure what you mean by either "certainty" or "persecution," hence my question.

Yes, certainly other religious groups have also been persecuted for their beliefs. I freely acknowledge that.

I wonder how often this happens.

That may be more a matter of bureacracy than anything else.

I dunno. The offenses and insults are pretty loud. Kinda hard to not hear them.

What was the list?

Hmm. I'm curious about your assessment of John 14:6 ("Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."), Acts 4:12 ("Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."), 1 Tim. 2:5, John 3:16, 18, 36, 1 John 5:11-12, 1 John 2:23, Matthew 11:27, and the the many other scriptures that seem to character Christ as the sole means of salvation.

In any event, I think we can get along even though we disagree about this important topic. Yes?

I think we should all made that concession

I have long appreciated the doctrines of the Church that touch on this subject. Salvation is truely available to all who want it.

Thanks. You too.

-Smac

Hi SMAC - Off topic, I hope you get down here to the colonies some time this year. It is a beautiful place. I appreciate all your points and see no need to debate them - except for one. I know you are extremely well-read in LDS history. When I talk about mutual persecution, I am talking about the sermons, writings, and teachings of the church members and leaders beginning in the late thirties right through to modern times about those who profess Christ but are not LDS. I have always thought it less than a valuable use of my time to document that line of thought in LDS literature (including sermons as literature), but I am surprised at the denial of folks as to its existence. I believe even writings like those of Kimball as an apostle were designed to put down all those non-LDS pretending Christians out there who were actually guilty of blasphemy. That is a form of persecution. Perhaps we have different concepts of persecution? At any rate, I appreciate and value your responses. You are a thinker, not a bomb thrower. I like that.

Robert F. Smith · June 3, 2020

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I have a copy of the personal message I sent to you. I just read it. It is still in my forum mailbox. I am sure it is in yours as well. Please look for it. It is dated March 9, 2019. I am happy to send it to you again personally so this does not become a circus. I may have a copy of your post; but I am not sure. I did not routinely copy posts that were directed at me. It was apparently in early March 2019. I have no interest in debating you or embarrassing you. You clearly don't remember. It probably was not a big deal to you. So you have forgotten. I don't want to ruin this thread or have it shut down because of this. I will simply ignore your posts. I won't ask others who communicated with me about your venom to vouch for the truth of what I am saying. That would accomplish nothing. I do not wish to be divisive in any way. My best to you.

Another falsehood, Phil. I checked, just in case. No wonder you will ignore my reply: You knew I said no such thing. If you wish, I can reproduce both those private messages here. Why do you feel such an overwhelming need to prevaricate?

Sign In

Vines, Branches, Citizens, and Faithful Non-members

Recommended Posts

teddyaware

teddyaware

CV75

alter idem

smac97

alter idem

Ahab

Navidad

Navidad

Robert F. Smith

Calm

JamesBYoung

Ahab

Navidad

Robert F. Smith

Robert F. Smith

Navidad

Navidad

Hamba Tuhan

JamesBYoung

Navidad

smac97

teddyaware

Navidad

Robert F. Smith

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse