Vines, Branches, Citizens, and Faithful Non-members

[Navidad]

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

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.

 

If one is certain how to get to the destination, one doesn't need the map. My faith is my map. It guides my life.

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, alter idem said:

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.

I understand that. You all work very hard at that. Thank you for your faithfulness to your beliefs.

Edited June 3, 2020 by Navidad

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

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. 

Very well said. Thanks. Your comment about being perceived as a lukewarm Christian is very true. It takes a lot of courage to live as my wife and I do. It also takes as someone said here, a thick skin. I have never had a particularly thick skin.  I am trying to grow one without becoming insensitive and incapable of empathy. Take care.

[Ahab]

14 minutes ago, Navidad said:

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!

Okay, well, this is now just another moment in my life where I move on to something else now, having told you what I told you while knowing you understood me and are simply choosing to not agree with me. 

So what would you like to talk about next.  Maybe in some other thread.

[Ahab]

19 minutes ago, Navidad said:

If one is certain how to get to the destination, one doesn't need the map. My faith is my map. It guides my life.

We move on from place to place.  Physically and spiritually/intellectually.  We don't ever just stay in one place, physically, totally still without any movement at all, and hopefully we'll always continue to progress spiritually/intellectually, too.

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

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.

Christ told us: "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." Christ comes in to us wherever we are. That is the clear intent of this verse. We don't have to go to where he is because he is wherever he decides. No mention of a key. In fact I open the door from the inside. No need for a key. If we open the door by faith, he will come in; that isn't a conditional based on what church we are in, if any. The sweetest words in the passage are "and he with me." Notice the almost complete lack of conditions. That is the way it was with the Samaritan woman, the thief on the cross and the tax collector. Christ met them each where they were. No pre-conditions; in a very mysterious way that I wish I understood better, in each case their faith was counted enough. I believe that is how it will be at the judgement seat of Christ. He will determine the nature of the faith of at least 150 billion people. I wonder how much of eternity that will take?
 

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, Navidad said:

Christ told us: "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." Christ comes in to us wherever we are. That is the clear intent of this verse. We don't have to go to where he is because he is wherever he decides. No mention of a key. In fact I open the door from the inside. No need for a key. If we open the door by faith, he will come in; that isn't a conditional based on what church we are in, if any. The sweetest words in the passage are "and he with me." Notice the almost complete lack of conditions. That is the way it was with the Samaritan woman, the thief on the cross and the tax collector. Christ met them each where they were. No pre-conditions; in a very mysterious way that I wish I understood better, in each case their faith was counted enough. I believe that is how it will be at the judgement seat of Christ. He will determine the nature of the faith of at least 150 billion people. I wonder how much of eternity that will take?
 

Just a quick glance at the Book of Life to see if our name is in it.  I'm guessing the names will be listed in alphabetical order to make them easier to find, and probably in electronic format too with a Search feature like we have for our scriptures and membership records, with additional details such as our membership numbers, when we lived, and what blessings/ordinances we accepted.

[Navidad]

18 minutes ago, Ahab said:

We move on from place to place.  Physically and spiritually/intellectually.  We don't ever just stay in one place, physically, totally still without any movement at all, and hopefully we'll always continue to progress spiritually/intellectually, too.

Hopefully yes. "Simply choosing not to agree with me." That sounds sad. There is nothing simple about it. You only see the result, not the process. I don't take what you say lightly. May I ask you a question? If I said to you, "Ahab I like you, I love you and that is why I am telling you that you must become a Mennonite, either in this world or the next to get into the celestial kingdom. Oh and you also need to be re-baptized, even if it is for the third time,  and receive the Holy Ghost by the hands of a Mennonite bishop or you will never even have hope of eternal life with your savior." Would you choose to agree with me? Now to be sure, I am not doing that. But that is what you are doing of me. In that light can you understand me not agreeing with you? What if I asked you then to pray about it? Would you? What would your response to me be? Isn't that a fair question, although I assure you it will never happen!

Edited June 3, 2020 by Navidad

[Navidad]

4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Just a quick glance at the Book of Life to see if our name is in it.  I'm guessing the names will be listed in alphabetical order to make them easier to find, and probably in electronic format too with a Search feature like we have for our scriptures and membership records, with additional details such as our membership numbers, when we lived, and what blessings/ordinances we accepted.

Wow, I never thought the Book of Life would be an LDS Book of Life complete with technology and lists of ordinances and membership numbers. What an interesting belief. You are serious aren't you? I haven't seen you kid around much. What an interesting concept. Thanks for sharing that. I love new and interesting things.

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, Navidad said:

Hopefully yes. "Simply choosing not to agree with me." That sounds sad. There is nothing simple about it. You only see the result, not the process. I don't take what you say lightly.

It all comes down to a simple Yes or No, though, in my perspective. Even if someone changes their answer later, like from No to Yes or Yes to No.

1 minute ago, Navidad said:

May I ask you a question? If I said to you, "Ahab I like you, I love you and that is why I am telling you that you must become a Mennonite, either in this world or the next to get into the celestial kingdom. Oh and you also need to be re-baptized, even if it is for the third time,  and receive the Holy Ghost by the hands of a Mennonite bishop or you will never even have hope of eternal life with your savior." Would you choose to agree with me?

No, because I know you are wrong based on what I know God has told me, personally.  And I am using the word know to express certainty. With no doubts about it.

1 minute ago, Navidad said:

Now to be sure, I am not doing that.

Okay, which I understand to mean that you are not as certain about your beliefs as I am about mine.

1 minute ago, Navidad said:

But that is what you are doing of me. In that light can you understand me not agreeing with you? What if I asked you then to pray about it? Would you? What would your response to me be? Isn't that a fair question?

If you ever get to the point where you know/are certain that God has told you something personally, rather than you reaching your own conclusions on your own without any confirmation or assurance from him, come back to me and talk to me about why you are so certain in your beliefs. When I know God has told me something, and I know it isn't just one of my own ideas, there is no good reason for me to doubt what he has told me.  

[Ahab]

16 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Wow, I never thought the Book of Life would be an LDS Book of Life complete with technology and lists of ordinances and membership numbers. What an interesting belief. You are serious aren't you? I haven't seen you kid around much. What an interesting concept. Thanks for sharing that. I love new and interesting things.

I kid around quite a bit, even if you haven't seen me do that much. And as I said, that's what I'm guessing it will be like. We will be doing a lot of the work for him, in his name and with his authority/priesthood, just as we already do now, and computers are very handy tools for us to use.

Edited June 3, 2020 by Ahab

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 hours ago, Navidad said:

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.

More than anything else that you've ever posted on this forum, this statement tells me that you still do not get 'LDS doctrine'.

Quote

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!

A whole lot of persecution committed by everyone, it seems, except you. Yet, by your broad definition of persecution, you are a persecutor of the Saints because you reject beliefs that are core to our commitment to and relationships with Christ.

By the way, you skipped over my question earlier. Do you agree that Jesus and the New Testament apostles persecuted the Jews?

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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

This is the crux!

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

More than anything else that you've ever posted on this forum, this statement tells me that you still do not get 'LDS doctrine'.

A whole lot of persecution committed by everyone, it seems, except you. Yet, by your broad definition of persecution, you are a persecutor of the Saints because you reject beliefs that are core to our commitment to and relationships with Christ.

By the way, you skipped over my question earlier. Do you agree that Jesus and the New Testament apostles persecuted the Jews?

This is the crux!

Hi - I will have to disagree with you on your point that I am a persecutor of the Saints. I simply disagree with some tenets of LDS doctrine. As do many Saints. My sharing my disagreements has no impact or is no threat to your eternal destiny. In fact I have done just the opposite. I assure you over and over and over that I believe you are fully Christians. I am probably more confident of you eternal life with the Father than some of you are. I believe you are assured of that via your covenant and faith in the atonement of Christ. Nothing more needed. You see a bunch more hoops to jump through to find the same assurance. I may not agree with those hoops, but my agreement or disagreement has no bearing on your eternal destiny.

On the other hand, there is a huge difference with how you contrast me and my beliefs. First you deny the efficacy of my baptism, that doesn't both me so much because I am not a baptismal regenerationalist, but it would be a terribly frightening belief to other Christians. Then you deny the efficacy of my covenants with God, the sufficiency of my belief in the atonement and my relationship with the Holy Spirit.  All of these are essential/core to my current and future relationship with Christ. It is not your agreeing with me that persecutes me as much as it is your imposing your own unique and specific doctrines on my eternal destiny. I must become you to practice the presence of God for eternity. That is a frightening thing for the young Christian or the Christian who is not mature in his or her faith. I have no such requirement stored away for you. None. I welcome you to the kingdom. You withhold the kingdom from me unless I become you. My disbelief in some of your tenets has no bearing on your eternal anything. Neither do I claim the authority to deny or grant you salvation. You do. I have heard 100 times that only your ordinances, sealings, and endowments count with Christ. Those of you who were endowed prior to 1990 learned I was in league with Lucifer, wasn't I ( the Protestant minister)? My eternal destiny is all in your hands according to you. You will offer me a choice. You will do the work for me. The only thing you leave me is my agency and if I choose wrong it is straight to the telestial or terrestial kingdom or worse. What am I saying that is incorrect? The first thing you said is I still do not get LDS doctrine. Perhaps I might offer a counter view. Perhaps I get it too well. You hold the authority. You hold the keys. You have the right sealings and ordinances. I have nothing but to comply or be relegated to the lesser worlds of heaven. That my friend is persecution. Of me yes, but imagine how it must scare the lightly initiated, or the weak brother or sister in Christ. Offending you by not listening to your counsel or agreeing with your conclusions is about the worst I could do. I neither have nor claim any power or authority over your spiritual destiny. And I faithfully go to your ward every Sunday! I participate and serve as I am allowed. In fact I probably disagree with you all less than some LDS members I have met at conferences!

I hope that helps. I have nothing to persecute you with. I have no desire to make you like me. Have I ever said or hinted at that? I hurt because of your rejection of my faith commitment because I really enjoy the fellowship. My rejection of joining the church has no bearing on your eternal destiny and it is more an indicator of my preferring to stay where I am in my own faith journey.

Do I agree that Jesus and the New Testament apostles persecuted the Jews? Well, yes and no. Christ was born, he lived, and died as a Jew. He was a reformer, but no I don't think he persecuted the Jews. He offered them the embodiment of the Jewish messiah in which to believe. He welcomed them based on their faith in him as the Son of Man and the Son of God. Do I agree that the apostles persecuted the Jews. Yes they probably did. They were the architects of the new Christianity. In his own death and resurrection Christ laid the cornerstone, indeed he was the cornerstone of the new faith. He offered himself to the folks, whether Jews , Samaritans or whatever. The disciples/apostles slowly and inexorably created the Christian community of believers. Were they capable of cajoling, coercing, playing on weaknesses? Probably. They earliest days of their ministry were spent trying to convert Jews, initially to a person (Christ) and later to the person and the organization as it developed into many splinter identities. Christian evangelists (non-LDS and LDS) have done so ever since. I am not sure exactly what you mean by your question. It sounds like a kind of a gotcha question (not sure why I say that) but I have a feeling there is no right answer to your question, so I have simply answered as directly as I can off the top of my head.

I spent a missionary term in the boonies of Africa when I was 20. Just last night I read a part of a book recently written about the mission activities in the area and time where I served. I was rather disappointed in what I read. When I was there I was completely unaware of the bickering, rivalry, jealousy between the various Christian groups to win the most converts. The book laid it all out. I was saddened by what I read. I think the innocent investigators become the victims. Take care my friend.

[JamesBYoung]

10 hours ago, alter idem said:

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.

Indeed, worthy efforts, yes.  That does not excuse those of us who still do the persecuted but privileged face to the rest of the world.

I am thrilled that so many of the educated, active, and faithful younger Genxrs as well as Millennials and Zoomers seem to have abandoned that part of the Intermountain Mormon complex.

Edited June 4, 2020 by JamesBYoung

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

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!

 

It's quite a wall of words, I must say but you miss the point.

There were a lot of statements about what you believe and what "WE" Christians "should" believe.

The point is that you believe we should extend all blessings of our membership to non members. Use whatever words you like.

We don't believe that.

There's really not much more to say.

Pretty simple stuff really, and your attempts to correct us are not going to work

😊

Edited June 4, 2020 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

More than anything else that you've ever posted on this forum, this statement tells me that you still do not get 'LDS doctrine'.

A whole lot of persecution committed by everyone, it seems, except you. Yet, by your broad definition of persecution, you are a persecutor of the Saints because you reject beliefs that are core to our commitment to and relationships with Christ.

By the way, you skipped over my question earlier. Do you agree that Jesus and the New Testament apostles persecuted the Jews?

This is the crux!

It is indeed the crux- especially in the light of the way these words are quoted here (not your fault of course, because the quotes only quote the quotes  but thereby  present only one side of the conversation

But it's a great point I think to discuss in this context whether or not Jesus and the 12 "persecuted" the high priests et al.

I mean he called them "whited sepulchers full of dead men's bones" which after all is not exactly polite.  

Christianity at its core excludes non-Christians from salvation-  and here we have Christians having hurt feelings from being excluded themselves.

Rather odd when you think it through imo.

On the other hand for years we did - I use past tense here obviously - fight to be called "Christians" which I always thought was a wrong direction for us.  If they didn't want us in their club, so be it.   There are vast errors in so called "Christianity" in my opinion- the notion that the Trinity is composed of "substance", the idea that we  enter the world as fallen creatures, the notion that a God who had a body could  and the transcendence, as opposed to the immanence,  of God, and many other problems.

I can't imagine NOT be excluded by those who think wrongly and do not care quite frankly if they oppose us

I have always hoped that at some point we would call ourselves THE Church of Jesus Christ, and drop any implication of wanting to be among those who today are called "Christians".

Thank God our dear prophet is in the process of changing that, which to me is evidence that he IS a prophet!

For What It's Worth- Nobody's right if everybody's wrong    SOMEBODY has to be right!!

 

[Calm]

Quote

Thank God our dear prophet is in the process of changing that, which to me is evidence that he IS a prophet!

I don’t see him doing that at all.

I am a Christian not because I follow a certain faith,  but because I seek Christ. And I will call myself a Christian until I die.  I don’t need to belong to some group of Christianity to do that because I belong to Christ, but of course we are a Christian faith and therefore are a part of Christianity.

Christianity:

Quote

the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices.

And I have always thought it rather silly there are Saints who dislike the label when we take upon his name every time we partake of the Sacrament. 

It makes as much sense to me as someone born in California refusing to be called an American, but still insisting that they are fully committed to being a California...and pledging allegiance to the American flag routinely with no concern. 

Edited June 4, 2020 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, Navidad said:

I accept you all just as you are. You don't accept me as I am. Is that an irreconcilable truth?

And yet it is you who tell us how wrong we are in every post. 

I don't see any difference 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

It makes as much sense to me as someone born in California refusing to be called an American, but still insisting that they are fully committed to being a California.

I suppose this is addressed to me, perhaps you were hoping I would miss it if you did not quote me.

Horrible and irrelevant analogy

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I suppose this is addressed to me, perhaps you were hoping I would miss it if you did not quote me.

I did quote you, so I don’t know what you are talking about. 

 I addressed it though to all who were reading it, even if they hadn’t thought such things, sharing my opinion on the board with anyone who cares to read like I always do. Now if someone had said such a thing over the years, including you, I thought it was of value for you to see a different view****. I felt that when I first heard it and I feel that way now. 

Are you claiming there are no others seeking Christ as their Lord, that Saints are the only ones who are doing so?  If not, then please explain why my analogy is so wrong. A dismissal is not an argument. 

****It would appear my position that we are Christians is the current one held by the Church. If Pres. Nelson means us to stop calling ourselves Christians, he needs to be clearer since it certainly is not contradictory with calling ourselves The Church of Jesus Christ. Sounds quite similar in fact to me. 
 

As a side note:  Growing up in San Fran, I knew a couple of fellow students in high school who were going to be living there in California the rest of their lives, never would consider anywhere else; otoh America could vanish for all they cared. Guess they blamed the War or the draft on the country, but the state was safe. 

Edited June 4, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

On the other hand for years we did - I use past tense here obviously - fight to be called "Christians" which I always thought was a wrong direction for us.

We are still claiming the name.  There is no need to fight for it since it is ours as well as others. 
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/christians?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/being-a-more-christian-christian?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/image/meme-jefferson-jesus-bdd681b?lang=eng

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/frequently-asked-questions

Edited June 4, 2020 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 hours ago, Navidad said:

You withhold the kingdom from me unless I become you ... My eternal destiny is all in your hands according to you.

Once again, you demonstrate a fundamentally flawed misunderstanding of my faith and beliefs and values. And then you have the temerity to state the following:

Quote

The first thing you said is I still do not get LDS doctrine. Perhaps I might offer a counter view. Perhaps I get it too well.

Mate, when another person's description of what I believe rings as hollow as yours does, something is seriously off.

Quote

Christ was born, he lived, and died as a Jew. He was a reformer, but no I don't think he persecuted the Jews. He offered them the embodiment of the Jewish messiah in which to believe. He welcomed them based on their faith in him as the Son of Man and the Son of God.

No offence, mate, but this sounds like an artful dodge. You've read the New Testament many times. You know full well that Jesus told the Jews, repeatedly, that their faith in Jehovah was insufficient without Him. That their laws and traditions were corrupt in contrast to His pure teachings. That their rulers were preaching the precepts of men instead of God's word. In every definition of persecution that you have offered in this thread, Jesus was a persecutor of the Jews. And they had every right to be offended by what he taught. He told them that their covenant relationship with Jehovah meant nothing unless they embraced Him. That rejecting Him would block their entrance to heaven. That He was, in fact, the exclusive way to salvation. Sound familiar?

Quote

Take care my friend.

You too!

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It is indeed the crux- especially in the light of the way these words are quoted here (not your fault of course, because the quotes only quote the quotes  but thereby  present only one side of the conversation

But it's a great point I think to discuss in this context whether or not Jesus and the 12 "persecuted" the high priests et al.

I mean he called them "whited sepulchers full of dead men's bones" which after all is not exactly polite.  

Christianity at its core excludes non-Christians from salvation-  and here we have Christians having hurt feelings from being excluded themselves.

Rather odd when you think it through imo.

On the other hand for years we did - I use past tense here obviously - fight to be called "Christians" which I always thought was a wrong direction for us.  If they didn't want us in their club, so be it.   There are vast errors in so called "Christianity" in my opinion- the notion that the Trinity is composed of "substance", the idea that we  enter the world as fallen creatures, the notion that a God who had a body could  and the transcendence, as opposed to the immanence,  of God, and many other problems.

I can't imagine NOT be excluded by those who think wrongly and do not care quite frankly if they oppose us

I have always hoped that at some point we would call ourselves THE Church of Jesus Christ, and drop any implication of wanting to be among those who today are called "Christians".

Thank God our dear prophet is in the process of changing that, which to me is evidence that he IS a prophet!

For What It's Worth- Nobody's right if everybody's wrong    SOMEBODY has to be right!!

 

 

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It's quite a wall of words, I must say but you miss the point.

There were a lot of statements about what you believe and what "WE" Christians "should" believe.

The point is that you believe we should extend all blessings of our membership to non members. Use whatever words you like.

We don't believe that.

There's really not much more to say.

Pretty simple stuff really, and your attempts to correct us are not going to work

😊

I simply do not understand your reply. That is ok. Here is what I said about what we should agree on:   "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."    That is simple, you are correct. Is there anything in that statement that you disagree with? Beyond that I have never said what else we as Christians should share as beliefs. I simply maintain that if you continue to maintain that you are the only true and living church with the only salvific truth, then you are exclusive and you persecute other Christians by means of that belief. That is pretty simple too.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And yet it is you who tell us how wrong we are in every post. 

I don't see any difference 

I own stating in lots of posts that I believe you are wrong in believing you are the only true and living church with the only salvific methodologies in all of Christianity. Ok, lets settle that. That is how I think you are wrong.

However, I don't expect you to change. Of course, if that belief didn't cause you to exclude me (as I am) that would be nice. So, keep that belief, cherish it . . . but  don't get offended then, when other Christians believe you to be exclusive and all the baggage that brings with it. Own your exclusivity, the offense that causes, including the belief that you persecute those who aren't you. It isn't about polygamy and Joseph Smith's weaknesses anymore. Let it go and see the tension for what actually causes it. I think that will actually help your missionary efforts. But most of all I understand that it really doesn't matter what I or any other evangelical thinks! You folks seem intent on making me an enemy for offering another view of the conflict between LDS Christians and non-LDS Christians. This is a dialogue board. Dialogue is offering different perspectives on reality or truth. Doing that doesn't make me thee or an enemy. Perhaps that is what a friend does. But, I don't anticipate you will agree with that either. I will always be an anti-Mormon for daring to offer a different perspective.

Edited June 4, 2020 by Navidad

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I did quote you, so I don’t know what you are talking about. 

 I addressed it to all who have said such a thing over the years, you are only one of many. I felt that when I first heard it and I feel that way now. 

Are you claiming there are no others seeking Christ as their Lord, that Saints are the only ones who are doing so?  If not, then please explain why my analogy is so wrong. A dismissal is not an argument. 
 

As a side note:  Growing up in San Fran, I knew a couple of fellow students in high school who were going to be living there in California the rest of their lives, never would consider anywhere else; otoh America could vanish for all they cared. Guess they blamed the War or the draft on the country, but the state was safe. 

I don't want to butt in here, but I love your phrase - "A dismissal is not an argument." There is a lot of wisdom in that.