Vines, Branches, Citizens, and Faithful Non-members

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

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.

I find it interesting that, in your mind, preaching against post-apostolic creeds and other doctrinal innovations equals labelling as blasphemers all other Christians who may have been taught those creeds or doctrines.

Quote

That is a form of persecution. Perhaps we have different concepts of persecution?

Do you accept that Jesus and the New Testament apostles were guilty of persecuting the Jews then?

But yeah, I suspect we may have different concepts of persecution. In my mind, there is a fundamental chasm between, for example, preaching why one considers Anabaptist beliefs to be mistaken, on one hand, and driving 17 Anabaptists into a farmhouse in Württemberg and burning the building down with the people inside, on the other.

Edited June 3, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

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.

 

 

However, google does do the search of the entire board as far as public posts (I don't know if moderators hide threads and posts or actually delete them), so if he called you these two things in public, the moderator removed them, so there is no way to confirm this publicly.  The thread might not be destroyed, but the post would be most likely removed and at most the thread locked.  It is very rare that an entire thread is deleted in my experience; not uncommon for an offensive post to be deleted though.

added:  looks like Hamba found the post in question. 

Edited June 3, 2020 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

How many times do we have to do the same thread over and over again with the same players making the same points?

It's a Groundhog Day nightmare.... 

 

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

How many times do we have to do the same thread over and over again with the same players making the same points?

It's a Groundhog Day nightmare.... 

 

You are correct. I take responsibility for not letting go. I found myself searching through google last night for the "evidence" so that I could validate the hurt I felt. Then I thought to myself "Why am I doing this?" What is the purpose?  What will be the outcome? I know before the Lord that I am not a fraud, neither am I anti-Mormon or a follower of Baal. I am never quite sure if that term has any meaning at all, so I will stop giving it significance by dwelling on it.  I need to let that go for my own well-being. It is a nightmare that doesn't need relived, especially on the forum. That isn't fair to any of you. I allowed myself to dwell on that hurt. You know that in a unique way since I have talked personally to you about it, as I have to a few others. Shame on me for clinging to it. Deep down inside I know better than to do that.  More importantly, I need to be better than to do that. Thanks.

[Navidad]

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I find it interesting that, in your mind, preaching against post-apostolic creeds and other doctrinal innovations equals labelling as blasphemers all other Christians who may have been taught those creeds or doctrines.

Do you accept that Jesus and the New Testament apostles were guilty of persecuting the Jews then?

But yeah, I suspect we may have different concepts of persecution. In my mind, there is a fundamental chasm between, for example, preaching why one considers Anabaptist beliefs to be mistaken, on one hand, and driving 17 Anabaptists into a farmhouse in Württemberg and burning the building down with the people inside, on the other.

Hi Hamba: Your example is about Anabaptist martyrdom. I have always been taught that for me to be killed for my faith is much more to be desired than for me to lose my eternal relationship with Christ (body versus soul kind of a thing). What LDS doctrine does, it takes away from me the very validity of the core of my commitment to and relationship with Christ. At its very core. So yes, I see that as persecution, perhaps of a more important kind. Hence I believe that members of the church persecute.

Of course, to be consistent I also see the fundamentalist who denies the faithful member of the LDS church a seat at the table of Christianity as equally persecuting them (you). So I see a whole lot of persecution going on! That, to me is the core foundation of the LDS/non-LDS tension and conflict. Of course members of the church have been persecuted. No question about that. It is a shame and blight on non-LDS Christians. That is why I believe in persecutional parity! Ok. so persecutional isn't a word - it gets my meaning across! Take care.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

However, google does do the search of the entire board as far as public posts (I don't know if moderators hide threads and posts or actually delete them), so if he called you these two things in public, the moderator removed them, so there is no way to confirm this publicly.  The thread might not be destroyed, but the post would be most likely removed and at most the thread locked.  It is very rare that an entire thread is deleted in my experience; not uncommon for an offensive post to be deleted though.

added:  looks like Hamba found the post in question. 

I keep copies of all my private posts, and can produce them on demand.  As for public posts, they are still available, and no public or private post of mine contains any such terms.  Phil invented them, as anti-Mormons sometimes do.  Of course, Jerald & Sandra Tanner would not do that, and they often attacked fellow anti-Mormons for dishonesty.  I respected them for that.  And, as I have often said, I never had a cross word with Sandra.  She was always very civil with me.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

............................ I believe in persecutional parity! ....................................

Just more fuzzy thinking to justify your false equivalency -- blaming the victim.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

You are correct. I take responsibility for not letting go. I found myself searching through google last night for the "evidence" so that I could validate the hurt I felt. Then I thought to myself "Why am I doing this?" What is the purpose?  What will be the outcome? I know before the Lord that I am not a fraud, neither am I anti-Mormon or a follower of Baal. I am never quite sure if that term has any meaning at all, so I will stop giving it significance by dwelling on it.  I need to let that go for my own well-being. It is a nightmare that doesn't need relived, especially on the forum. That isn't fair to any of you. I allowed myself to dwell on that hurt. You know that in a unique way since I have talked personally to you about it, as I have to a few others. Shame on me for clinging to it. Deep down inside I know better than to do that.  More importantly, I need to be better than to do that. Thanks.

Taking the Lord's name in vain is not appropriate, Phil.  You need to confess that you were clearly wrong, made false accusations, and that the fault is yours, Phil.  Then actual repentance can begin.

[Ahab]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

How many times do we have to do the same thread over and over again with the same players making the same points?

It's a Groundhog Day nightmare.... 

 

Maybe this time around I will get even better at playing a piano.

[Ahab]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hi Hamba: Your example is about Anabaptist martyrdom. I have always been taught that for me to be killed for my faith is much more to be desired than for me to lose my eternal relationship with Christ (body versus soul kind of a thing). What LDS doctrine does, it takes away from me the very validity of the core of my commitment to and relationship with Christ. At its very core. So yes, I see that as persecution, perhaps of a more important kind. Hence I believe that members of the church persecute.

Of course, to be consistent I also see the fundamentalist who denies the faithful member of the LDS church a seat at the table of Christianity as equally persecuting them (you). So I see a whole lot of persecution going on! That, to me is the core foundation of the LDS/non-LDS tension and conflict. Of course members of the church have been persecuted. No question about that. It is a shame and blight on non-LDS Christians. That is why I believe in persecutional parity! Ok. so persecutional isn't a word - it gets my meaning across! Take care.

What we do when we say someone doesn't have a covenant relationship with Jesus Christ while explaining that is because they haven't taken those steps yet is not persecution, though. Not by any stretch of that word.

it is at most an expression of love and an expression of our beliefs, with words. No violence of any kind. And we will usually follow up with additional words to explain how to have that covenant relationship with Jesus Christ.

But we've already told you here on this forum and I think you've also heard it while attending some of our ward meetings, so I won't take the time again to tell you about that. But if you want to hear it, again, I'm sure you will sometime soon.

[Navidad]

55 minutes ago, Ahab said:

What we do when we say someone doesn't have a covenant relationship with Jesus Christ while explaining that is because they haven't taken those steps yet is not persecution, though. Not by any stretch of that word.

it is at most an expression of love and an expression of our beliefs, with words. No violence of any kind. And we will usually follow up with additional words to explain how to have that covenant relationship with Jesus Christ.

But we've already told you here on this forum and I think you've also heard it while attending some of our ward meetings, so I won't take the time again to tell you about that. But if you want to hear it, again, I'm sure you will sometime soon.

Hi Ahab - I appreciate your words. I guess I simply think that there are more kinds of persecution than violence. Mocking comes to my mind. Diminishing or denigrating someone. Falsely accusing someone. Stereotyping someone. Talking about someone behind their back. Withholding water from someone who is thirsty. Refusing to feed someone who is hungry. I think certainty is a form of persecution when your certainty is about that which you cannot know or invalidates someone else's' lived spiritual convictions provided them by the same Holy Ghost you honor.  Attacking someone's character. Taking advantage of, being a stumbling block, or hurting a weaker brother is a form or persecution. Believing that someone who isn't you or like you is a failed attempt at being you. Edmund Burke once said " Religious persecution may shield itself under the guise of a mistaken and over-zealous piety." I think there is wisdom in that - regardless of who that persecution comes from. I think bullying someone on a corner by the Mesa temple is a perfect example. I think many polemicists and some apologists on all sides are examples of that.

I guess I could go on, but I tend to do that too much. Maybe you see all these as "stretches." That is ok. Maybe they are. They simply are what I believe. I welcome the dialogue. You certainly don't have to agree with me.

Edited June 3, 2020 by Navidad

[alter idem]

20 hours 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.

It would be elitist if we refused to share this opportunity to be together, sealed as families,  and instead  only offered it to a select few.   The opposite is true,  we actively share this with all who will listen,  we are even working diligently in our temples to offer these eternal blessings to those who have died.

[alter idem]

17 hours 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:

 

Excellent find Hamba Tuhan! It always helps to go to the source.

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, Navidad said:

Hi Ahab - I appreciate your words. I guess I simply think that there are more kinds of persecution than violence. Mocking comes to my mind. Diminishing or denigrating someone. Falsely accusing someone. Stereotyping someone. Talking about someone behind their back. Withholding water from someone who is thirsty. Refusing to feed someone who is hungry. I think certainty is a form of persecution when your certainty about that which you cannot know, invalidates someone else's' lived convictions.  Attacking someone's character. Taking advantage of, being a stumbling block, or hurting a weaker brother is a form or persecution. Believing that someone who isn't you or like you is a failed attempt at being you. Edmund Burke once said " Religious persecution may shield itself under the guise of a mistaken and over-zealous piety." I think there is wisdom in that - regardless of who that persecution comes from. I think bullying someone on a corner by the Mesa temple is a perfect example. I think many polemicists and some apologists on all sides are examples of that.

Religious persecution may shield itself under the guise of a mistaken and over-zealous piety.
Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/persecution-quotes

Religious persecution may shield itself under the guise of a mistaken and over-zealous piety.
Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/persecution-quotes

I guess I could go on, but I tend to do that too much. Maybe you see all these as "stretches." That is ok. Maybe they are. They simply are what I believe. I welcome the dialogue. You certainly don't have to agree with me.

Interesting that you talked about things that I did not mention, instead of responding to what I was talking about.  And after reading your words I agree that persecution isn't necessarily always presented as a form of violence. 

But let's go back to what I was saying while using an analogy and then you can tell me if you still feel the same way.

Let's say that your body is physically dirty, and I can smell a foul odor from you, at which point I then tell you that your body is dirty and smells bad and that you need to take a shower.  And suppose I say it as nice as I know how.

Now suppose you respond to me by saying I am being rude and that you think you are clean because you took a shower recently.

What would you do then?  Maybe take a poll?  What if you got different responses, with some saying they think you smell fine and others who say you don't smell clean to them?

Would it really hurt you to take another shower? And do you seriously think I was being rude to tell you that I believed you needed to take a shower?  

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, Navidad said:

... I think certainty is a form of persecution when your certainty is about that which you cannot know or invalidates someone else's' lived spiritual convictions provided them by the same Holy Ghost you honor.

This is the answer, Phil.

YOU are certain that all believers in Christ should accept the doctrine of all other believers in Christ as correct. 

We are certain that that is not correct.

The Catholics are with us on this one they believe that their church is exclusively the correct one.  There is no salvation outside of Catholicism.

The problem is not the certainty. Certainty is a psychological state of belief.

Some Churches have that as their Central Doctrine.

Your church, about which you are certain, teachers the opposite doctrine that all Christians should accept each other's Doctrine.

That is what you have been taught, as you stated in a post just above.

In that sense you are excluding our beliefs as much as we are excluding yours.

For us there is one true church. For you there are many True Churches, or you define it in such a way as to say that all believers in Christ are members of the true church.

That is a basic disagreement, it is unsolvable.

Sometimes friends just need to agree to disagree on certain items, and not be hurt by the other friend's opinion.

I'm acutely aware of this fact because I was born into one church that called itself the only correct church and now I'm a member of another church that says that it is the only correct Church.

For me the idea that there actually is one correct church then, is something about which I have been certain most of my life at the times when I was religious, except for the times when I thought atheism was the only true church.

I cannot imagine what it would be like to have a church without that belief, you cannot imagine a church with that belief.

The differences are perhaps irreconcilable.

 

 

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is the answer, Phil.

YOU are certain that all believers in Christ should accept the doctrine of all other believers in Christ as correct. 

We are certain that that is not correct.

The Catholics are with us on this one they believe that their church is exclusively the correct one.  There is no salvation outside of Catholicism.

The problem is not the certainty. Certainty is a psychological state of belief.

Some Churches have that as their Central Doctrine.

Your church, about which you are certain, teachers the opposite doctrine that all Christians should accept each other's Doctrine.

That is what you have been taught, as you stated in a post just above.

In that sense you are excluding our beliefs as much as we are excluding yours.

For us there is one true church. For you there are many True Churches, or you define it in such a way as to say that all believers in Christ are members of the true church.

That is a basic disagreement, it is unsolvable.

Sometimes friends just need to agree to disagree on certain items, and not be hurt by the other friend's opinion.

I'm acutely aware of this fact because I was born into one church that called itself the only correct church and now I'm a member of another church that says that it is the only correct Church.

For me the idea that there actually is one correct church then, is something about which I have been certain most of my life at the times when I was religious, except for the times when I thought atheism was the only true church.

I cannot imagine what it would be like to have a church without that belief, you cannot imagine a church with that belief.

The differences are perhaps irreconcilable.

 

 

I see some good points here but I think we need to differentiate between Christian beliefs and entering into a covenant relationship with Jesus Christ.  Navidad seems to mix those 2 different things up.

As you know, when people believe something about Jesus Christ, often based on what they understand from studying the Bible, they do not automatically become a member of the true church of Jesus Christ.

At that point they simply have a belief regarding Jesus Christ and what someone else wrote or said which they believe is true, and even if it is true, that doesn't automatically put them in a covenant relationship with Jesus Christ.

A lot of people I regard as Christians seem to think they can join any church that professes to be Christian or even start their own church and consider it to be one of many true churches of Jesus Christ, whereas we believe we need to have what are called "keys" to be able to do that.

You have noticed, I'm sure, that there are only 2 churches who talk about needing to have keys of the kingdom of God to be able to do any work in God's kingdom.  Every other church seems to believe they don't need those.

Edited June 3, 2020 by Ahab

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Interesting that you talked about things that I did not mention, instead of responding to what I was talking about.  And after reading your words I agree that persecution isn't necessarily always presented as a form of violence. 

But let's go back to what I was saying while using an analogy and then you can tell me if you still feel the same way.

Let's say that your body is physically dirty, and I can smell a foul odor from you, at which point I then tell you that your body is dirty and smells bad and that you need to take a shower.  And suppose I say it as nice as I know how.

Now suppose you respond to me by saying I am being rude and that you think you are clean because you took a shower recently.

What would you do then?  Maybe take a poll?  What if you got different responses, with some saying they think you smell fine and others who say you don't smell clean to them?

Would it really hurt you to take another shower? And do you seriously think I was being rude to tell you that I believed you needed to take a shower?  

Hi my friend. Well I wasn't sure how to respond to this until I noticed something in your post. Your example states that my "body is indeed physically dirty." So it is not that you think it is dirty or it seems dirty to you. It is indeed dirty. I would assume I would take a look at my body, smell it for myself and go take a shower. The next time I saw you I would probably thank you for pointing out the dirt that really was there. I hope that helps. To bring it back to the spiritual; yes we are both unclean. We both need a bath. God provided us that bath in the atonement of his Son. Will we ever get dirty again? Sure. But we both have the assurance that through confession and continued reliance on the atonement we can be as white as snow - clean again. You have that promise as do I.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

.................... I guess I simply think that there are more kinds of persecution than violence. Mocking comes to my mind. Diminishing or denigrating someone. Falsely accusing someone. Stereotyping someone. Talking about someone behind their back. Withholding water from someone who is thirsty. Refusing to feed someone who is hungry. I think certainty is a form of persecution when your certainty is about that which you cannot know or invalidates someone else's' lived spiritual convictions provided them by the same Holy Ghost you honor.  Attacking someone's character. Taking advantage of, being a stumbling block, or hurting a weaker brother is a form or persecution. Believing that someone who isn't you or like you is a failed attempt at being you. Edmund Burke once said " Religious persecution may shield itself under the guise of a mistaken and over-zealous piety." I think there is wisdom in that - regardless of who that persecution comes from. I think bullying someone on a corner by the Mesa temple is a perfect example. I think many polemicists and some apologists on all sides are examples of that........................

You speak out of both sides of your mouth, Phil.  You feel comfortable making false accusations, not only about me, but about the LDS people in general.  Why is that?  Why haven't you responded to my CFR by admitting that you are wrong?  Moreover, you likewise accuse the LDS people of guilt merely for existing and practicing their religion.  They need not actually persecute anyone in order to be defined by you as persecutors.  For you, the mere existence of the LDS people is a form of persecution.  Your version of reality is a form of doublespeak right out of Orwell's 1984.   You want to have your cake and eat it too, Phil.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Hi my friend. Well I wasn't sure how to respond to this until I noticed something in your post. Your example states that my "body is indeed physically dirty." So it is not that you think it is dirty or it seems dirty to you. It is indeed dirty. I would assume I would take a look at my body, smell it for myself and go take a shower. The next time I saw you I would probably thank you for pointing out the dirt that really was there. I hope that helps. To bring it back to the spiritual; yes we are both unclean. We both need a bath. God provided us that bath in the atonement of his Son. Will we ever get dirty again? Sure. But we both have the assurance that through confession and continued reliance on the atonement we can be as white as snow - clean again. You have that promise as do I.

Okay, now that we are at the point where you can see that you are dirty, we should probably talk about how you should go about getting yourself clean.  I've already done it, and I understand how to do it, so I will now tell you how it is done.  As of this moment you seem to think you are clean even though I know you haven't done what it will take for you to be clean.  

First, you need the right cleaning agent, aka soap, and some water, and someone else to help you clean the parts of yourself that you can not clean by yourself. There are a lot of cleaning agents who will profess to be able to clean you but you need something {or someone} in particular. It isn't as if anything some people call a cleaning agent will do what is needed. The water is pretty much the same as any kind of water. Generally you just need enough of it so that every part of your body can be immersed in it.  The person you will need to help you to get clean, though...well, let's just say that some random person in general society will most likely not be qualified to do the work that is needed. First of all that person will need to be male, rather than female. He will also need to be a member of the clergy with the appropriate credentials in the kingdom of God, otherwise known as the true church of Jesus Christ, or as it is more formally known, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If he is not a member of the clergy with the appropriate credentials in that church, or kingdom, then he will not be able to clean you appropriately.  Not even if he knows about the right cleaning agent and how much water to use.

Edited June 3, 2020 by Ahab

[Storm Rider]

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

You are correct. I take responsibility for not letting go. I found myself searching through google last night for the "evidence" so that I could validate the hurt I felt. Then I thought to myself "Why am I doing this?" What is the purpose?  What will be the outcome? I know before the Lord that I am not a fraud, neither am I anti-Mormon or a follower of Baal. I am never quite sure if that term has any meaning at all, so I will stop giving it significance by dwelling on it.  I need to let that go for my own well-being. It is a nightmare that doesn't need relived, especially on the forum. That isn't fair to any of you. I allowed myself to dwell on that hurt. You know that in a unique way since I have talked personally to you about it, as I have to a few others. Shame on me for clinging to it. Deep down inside I know better than to do that.  More importantly, I need to be better than to do that. Thanks.

A very human predicament. Some hurts we just cannot let go of; it affects some integral part of our being and both offends and hurts UNTIL we are willing to let it pass. 

Navidad, we have had limited interaction on this Forum simply because I never felt a need for more. For what it is worth, I have always recognized you to be a Christian content upon their path. Obviously, you find a degree of enjoyment among the LDS people or you would not attend meetings and social gatherings as much as you do. 

There are consequences to walking an ecumenical path. It is as if we become "other" regardless of with whom we meet. It is almost as if we are viewed as lukewarm Christians that won't take a stand and nothing could be further from the truth. It is these kinds of time that we rely on Christ; he is our touchstone to all things religious. He is our Master, Lord, and Savior and we must learn to stand firm on him in all ways and under all conditions. 

Be at peace; rejoice in truth where'er you find it and let the rest go. 

[Robert F. Smith]

20 hours 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.  Phil's warped memory turned the analogy into something completely out of line.

[Vanguard]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Hi my friend. Well I wasn't sure how to respond to this until I noticed something in your post. Your example states that my "body is indeed physically dirty." So it is not that you think it is dirty or it seems dirty to you. It is indeed dirty. I would assume I would take a look at my body, smell it for myself and go take a shower. The next time I saw you I would probably thank you for pointing out the dirt that really was there. I hope that helps. To bring it back to the spiritual; yes we are both unclean. We both need a bath. God provided us that bath in the atonement of his Son. Will we ever get dirty again? Sure. But we both have the assurance that through confession and continued reliance on the atonement we can be as white as snow - clean again. You have that promise as do I.

Greetings, Navidad. I believe you are correct with your closing comment here. All those who sincerely follow the dictates of their conscience retain for themselves the potential for exaltation in the Lord's kingdom saving ordinances notwithstanding.  Nevertheless, these ordinances will be done for all mankind either during their mortality or afterward through the vicarious work we do in temples. Please know, however, as monumentally important as these ordinances are, I believe they absolutely pale in comparison to each man's effort to follow his conscience in this morality whether that includes a belief in the Savior or in the authority of the LDS Church to effect said ordinances or not. From what little I know of you, you strike me as as a good Christian man. Carry on. : )

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

This is the answer, Phil.

YOU are certain that all believers in Christ should accept the doctrine of all other believers in Christ as correct. 

We are certain that that is not correct.

The Catholics are with us on this one they believe that their church is exclusively the correct one.  There is no salvation outside of Catholicism.

The problem is not the certainty. Certainty is a psychological state of belief.

Some Churches have that as their Central Doctrine.

Your church, about which you are certain, teachers the opposite doctrine that all Christians should accept each other's Doctrine.

That is what you have been taught, as you stated in a post just above.

In that sense you are excluding our beliefs as much as we are excluding yours.

For us there is one true church. For you there are many True Churches, or you define it in such a way as to say that all believers in Christ are members of the true church.

That is a basic disagreement, it is unsolvable.

Sometimes friends just need to agree to disagree on certain items, and not be hurt by the other friend's opinion.

I'm acutely aware of this fact because I was born into one church that called itself the only correct church and now I'm a member of another church that says that it is the only correct Church.

For me the idea that there actually is one correct church then, is something about which I have been certain most of my life at the times when I was religious, except for the times when I thought atheism was the only true church.

I cannot imagine what it would be like to have a church without that belief, you cannot imagine a church with that belief.

The differences are perhaps irreconcilable.

 

 

Good post. I just need to make a couple of comments. I hope that is ok. First, my beliefs that I bring here to discuss with you all have nothing to do with my church. You folks are first of all faithful members of a church. I hope it is fair to say that you are a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints first and foremost. That is your primary spiritual identity. Look how many times you used the word church in your post. - 14 times I think. The church is critical and vital to you. You believe my doctrine comes from my church. I guess a tiny bit of it does - things like pacifism, foot washing, and social justice as a spiritual principle. That is about it. How many times have you ever heard me use the phrase "my church?" Possibly at some time but most likely never. I formulate my own beliefs in my own way in my own heart. So I must own them. There is no one anywhere in the world today who can chastise me for my beliefs except my LDS friends. No one. I am responsible to my ward bishop; no one else. I think you are putting LDS church prioritization on me where it doesn't fit. Of course I get chastised plenty for attending an LDS ward. But I really don't care! So far no one has taken away my Christianity from me for that.

Second, it is not correct to say "I believe we should accept the doctrine of all other believers in Christ as correct. There are things in the Lutheran church I don't think are correct. There are things in the Oneness Pentecostal Church I don't believe are correct. There are things in the Mennonite Church that I don't believe are correct. And no surprise, there are things in the LDS church I don't believe are correct! I am an equal opportunity questioner of doctrine. Please remember my church affiliation is only third on my list. This is the reason I can be content to attend an LDS ward instead of another specific church. My salvation has nothing to do with any church, any church ordinance or polity. Let's see, I was raised in a Mennonite community, but in a non-denominational church. I went to a Methodist college and a Baptist seminary and graduate school. Then I went to a Christian Church/Disciples of Christ Seminary. Then I went to a different kind of Baptist (American) seminary. I have had membership in non-denominational churches and have pastored one of them. By latest count I have preached in churches of 28 different denominations including giving two sacrament talks in an LDS ward. At one time in my life my best friend and closest confidant was Muslim. I was a professor in an Independent Baptist college and then in a Conservative Baptist college. I was ordained Southern Baptist and licensed as a Mennonite minister. I was the headmaster of a Mennonite K-12. I consider our village priest a very close friend. I attend a British university next to the Anglican seat (Cathedral) for the whole world in Canterbury, England. For almost the last three years I have attended an LDS ward exclusively, except when I was speaking in a church of another denomination on a speaking trip. I identify as a Christian first, an evangelical second, a Mennonite third and a Mormon fourth. Of course that will drive you nuts, but that is the truth for how it is in my heart. My ecclesiastical oversight today as I sit here comes from the bishop of our ward. We have voluntarily put ourselves under his authority. We have been over that before. Does this all help you understand my church loyalty? No church can influence my salvation. That is 110% between me, as an individual and Christ. I am a royal priest according to Peter. Administratively I have additional authority in Baptist and Mennonite congregations.

I agree with you (without the certainty) that we should not accept all the doctrine of every other church. I have never said we should. I also don't expect other folks from other groups to agree with me on anything except the core essentials of the atonement. The appendages don't matter. Since I believe salvation is an individual thing, questions like are Mormons Christian don't interest me. Just like are Mennonites Christians doesn't interest me. If Christ died for us as individuals the atonement's effect is individual and grace is distributed individually. I reject your premise that all Catholics currently teach that salvation only comes through their church and no other. They certainly did at one time, and certainly (you are rubbing off on me) some do, but not all do. Again I am not certain about my church's teachings. I am comfortable with them. I like them. Certain, no!!! Again I do not believe all Christians should accept each other's doctrines. Please don't keep saying that. That simply isn't correct. I am not excluding your beliefs. You all may be right about a bunch of things - I sure hope so because I agree with a bunch!  You may be right about everything. We will never know with certainty this side of the veil. We all faith that we are correct. Faith with certainty isn't faith. The essence of faith is well, faith!  You are right. I do believe that all Christians are Christians one by one. As such they are members of the Christian community which is composed of individual sheep - not flocks. Christ did not die for a church; not for any church. He died for individual folks who have faith. What must that faith look like? I can't be certain! I am sure it is not as narrow as I was taught early on in my life. I have never worshiped in a "true" church. I live, eat, breathe, and sleep in the community of Christ. I base my attitude towards a church on the folks who attend it. Any church anywhere. I see very little difference in the spirituality and Godliness, as much as can be seen (much cannot be seen) in most Christian churches. If I saw a super duper above average spirituality in the members of any one church, I would be really drawn to that church. I am drawn to the fellowship in the LDS church.

Last, I believe that as Christians we should share the essential truths of Christianity: Jesus Christ, crucified, risen, and coming again (lots of variance on that last one), The existence of a Godhead. The truth of the atonement and the good news of Christ. We should love our neighbors as our-self. We should love God in the same way. That is what I think we should all believe. There may even be variances in that to some degree. I don't expect us to agree on anything else. I personally struggle a bit with baptismal regeneration, but I know it to be a truly held belief among some churches, the LDS church included. I thank that adds a bit to grace, but I would never suggest that it is wrong.

You see, I am not certain. I live by faith; not by certainty. That is freeing and allows me to accept my LDS friends who have covenanted based on a belief in the atonement as Christians, perhaps even more so than you do yourselves. I hear very little in the ward about the members being Christians. I do hear a lot in our ward about grace the last year. Our first counselor in the bishopric is a big fan of grace and teaches it just about every time he speaks. I like that a lot. I accept you all just as you are. You don't accept me as I am. Is that an irreconcilable truth? That is up to you, not to me. If you don't or can''t accept me as I am, I will then continue to declare you to be exclusive, because you will be excluding me from grace and eternal life with Christ without your specific ordinances. Don't be upset with me for calling it like it is. You  make that decision, and most probably already have excluded me. That will be your decision and I already know that different members of the church believe differently about its exclusiveness. I listed to a wonderful talk the other day by a three time bishop in the church. He is a faithful physician in the SLC area. He spoke at the Sunstone conference. He openly stated his belief (I heard the "tape" of the talk) that D&C 1:30 is aspirational. He indicated the whole verse is in the subjunctive mood, not the indicative, therefore it is conditional. Others at MHA have very varying beliefs on the exclusivity of the church as God's only and only true. There may even be some differences on this forum about that. I hope all this helps. Gotta run!

 

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

You see, I am not certain. I live by faith; not by certainty.

Just so you know, or I can say I told you, having faith is all about having a certainty, because that's what faith is. To be sure of something. To have an assurance of something. To have trust that something is what you are sure it is.

If what you call faith is something different than that, then what you call faith should probably be called something else, like maybe hope, which is all about being open to a possibility that something is what you think it is.

 

[Navidad]

46 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Okay, now that we are at the point where you can see that you are dirty, we should probably talk about how you should go about getting yourself clean.  I've already done it, and I understand how to do it, so I will now tell you how it is done.  As of this moment you seem to think you are clean even though I know you haven't done what it will take for you to be clean.  

First, you need the right cleaning agent, aka soap, and some water, and someone else to help you clean the parts of yourself that you can not clean by yourself. There are a lot of cleaning agents who will profess to be able to clean you but you need something {or someone} in particular. It isn't as if anything some people call a cleaning agent will do what is needed. The water is pretty much the same as any kind of water. Generally you just need enough of it so that every part of your body can be immersed in it.  The person you will need to help you to get clean, though...well, let's just say that some random person in general society will most likely not be qualified to do the work that is needed. First of all that person will need to be male, rather than female. He will also need to be a member of the clergy with the appropriate credentials in the kingdom of God, otherwise known as the true church of Jesus Christ, or as it is more formally known, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If he is not a member of the clergy with the appropriate credentials in that church, or kingdom, then he will not be able to clean you appropriately.  Not even if he knows about the right cleaning agent and how much water to use.

Ahab, I like it and I admire your ability to write and paint a picture. Not many can do that. We have both been cleansed. I have a strong testimony, probably as strong as yours that I have been cleansed by the blood of the Lamb. I accept that you have been cleansed; no doubt in my mind . . . hold on! wait a minute - I am even pretty certain about it! Ha! You reject my cleansing. That makes me sad of course. It doesn't offend me as much as might have a year or so ago. I am getting more used to it. I take you at your word. Oh and just in case it matters, and it won't - I was immersed -every part of my body. The hand of the baptizer was at the square. It was a he. He baptized me with almost exactly the same words as an LDS father does his son. I wore white. I don't think he did. Does all that make a difference? No, I didn't think so! Thanks for your kindness, your spirit, and your patience with me. I think in different ways you and I are both works in progress!