Jump to content

Vines, Branches, Citizens, and Faithful Non-members


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Navidad said:

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.

Definitely not original to me.  :)

Link to post
3 hours ago, Navidad said:

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.

I think we already understood that is what you meant and I think we are all able to go on with our lives even while knowing you do not agree with us,

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

However, I don't expect you to change.

Good. And I think it would be a bad thing if we did agree with you on that.

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Of course, if that belief didn't cause you to exclude me (as I am) that would be nice.

I would like you to understand that what we are excluding/rejecting is not you, personally, but rather the belief/position you have accepted, which is that every so-called church or Christian automatically enters into a covenant with Jesus Christ and becomes a member of his church simply by believing in Jesus Christ, or by simply doing what he/she personally believes he/she needs to do to do that.  It isn't something someone can do on their own.  And it isn't just between each individual and Jesus Christ.  There are ordinances to attend to and Jesus Christ doesn't personally baptize anybody, which involves someone else, who is already a member of his church and has been given his authority, immersing that person in water and laying hands on that person's head to give them the gift of the Holy Ghost and confirm that person to be a member of his church and thus under the covenant with Jesus Christ. 

I would also like you to understand that we reject your idea that a member of any church other than the true church of Jesus Christ.has our Lord's authority to do any work in God's kingdom, aka his church.

If you already understand that these are 2 of the most basic reasons why we do not agree with your position/belief, it would be nice if you said so rather than simply saying that what we are excluding is you.

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

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.

We are not offended by knowing we are doing what we know our Lord has commanded us to do in regard to the procedures of admitting someone into the kingdom of God. And you are still welcome to join us. To become one of us.

But you're going to have to do it our Lord's way rather than thinking we should do it in some other way. Only our Lord's authorized clergy can administer the ordinances that are required, and we know how to tell who our Lord's clergy is.

  • Like 2
Link to post
9 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!!

 

I liked your post, but I am sure you realize that somebody does NOT have to be right. They weren't right for over a thousand years, and the world wondered after the beast. I like and appreciate Navidad, but the day is upon the world when those who believe that simply believing in Christ is enough will see differently. They will realize this error when they are left behind, but until that time they will persecute the truth, because it is just too different from what they were raised believing. I am of course not saying that Navidad does not have any truth, nor that he doesn't feel the spirit witness the truth of the scriptures to him. He simply resists more truth than what he has recognized from his past. This will be difficult to do when the true points of His doctrine are made manifest to all the world in deed. Arguments flounder when evidence is manifest.

If someone asks if I am a Christian, I say yes, I am a LDS Christian, unashamedly. That has raised an opportunity to explain what that is, and why I am. I have found it to be a good segway into further discussion. Responding with "I am a member of THE Church" just seems like it would not be a direct answer, and a little uncomfortable. I guess it is not what Nelson has counseled us to do, but I want the exchange to flow and feel natural. For me it's not a matter of feeling excluded... I am quite used to that... it is a matter of the best way to open a beneficial conversation... to do missionary work.

Link to post
6 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

If someone asks if I am a Christian, I say yes, I am a LDS Christian, unashamedly. That has raised an opportunity to explain what that is, and why I am. I have found it to be a good segway into further discussion. Responding with "I am a member of THE Church" just seems like it would not be a direct answer, and a little uncomfortable. I guess it is not what Nelson has counseled us to do, but I want the exchange to flow and feel natural. For me it's not a matter of feeling excluded... I am quite used to that... it is a matter of the best way to open a beneficial conversation... to do missionary work.

I think you should try to include that idea in your overall response to someone even if you do not open with that.  The covenants are available only in THE Church, and any ordinance in any other church is just counterfeit.

Link to post

Navidad, as a fellow non-LDS Christian, I have to say that I share your sorrow.  

I have been reading this thread, and wasn't going to enter the conversation ... especially since I very, very rarely post anything here.

But I want you to know that there's at least one other person who reads both what you've written, and the responses to you, in empathy, solidarity and understanding with you.

And, with you, I deeply appreciate those LDS members here who have shown a willingness to be generous, open and compassionate in their conversation with you.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Paloma said:

Navidad, as a fellow non-LDS Christian, I have to say that I share your sorrow.  

I would think that feeling would be fairly common among non-LDS Christians.  Either that or they just don't care if LDS Christians think non-LDS Christians are in the true church of Jesus Christ. 

Even if both LDS Christians and non-LDS Christians are all Christians, it's pretty obvious to me that we're not all in the same church, and there can only be one true church of Jesus Christ.

All of us can be in the same church, and the true church, though, if we want to be.  We just need to ask God which church is the true church of Jesus Christ and then do what it takes to be a member of it.

Edited by Ahab
Link to post
Posted (edited)

.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to post
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Calm said:

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:

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. 

Help me out here.

You said you quoted me here, and dang it, I can't find my name anywhere in this post

No name, no quote, no notification.

Essentially talking behind my back.

I have repeatedly asked you to use the quote function, and told you that if you do not use the function, I will not see it

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to post
1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

???  A quote is repeating someone’s words, not naming someone. I assumed you would recognize your own words and did not realize you needed me to name you. No one has ever complained before when I copy/paste rather than use the quote selection feature. It is a tech thing. Sometimes I can’t get the quote feature to work. 
 

I will try and remember you need to be named, but I will probably forget from time to time since it is an old habit I have been using since before the board existed. I don’t even always use the quote box because I have to scroll on my phone to go find it, so sometimes it’s actually “ “.

Link to post
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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

See the quote at the beginning of my post*** and note that it matches the above. Your words. 

***https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72921-vines-branches-citizens-and-faithful-non-members/?do=findComment&comment=1209975131

 

Edited by Calm
Link to post
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Navidad said:

 

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.

Italics added

By using the word "should" you are telling others what they SHOULD believe, and therefore there exist counter examples that they "should not " believe.

This sets standards for others who do not believe as you do, making them wrong and you right.

All your posts essentially say we LDS "should not" be exclusive. That sets a standard for us which we do not accept.

By saying essentially that we are wrong to be exclusive, while you are right to be inclusive, you are essentially doing what you accuse us of doing to you

You "persecute" us for being exclusive.

I have said this a few times before and we cannot seem communicate well on this topic 

 

 

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 2
Link to post
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Navidad said:

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.

It is, but we add ordinances to our list, and you fault us for that.

You make no provision for the billions who have never heard your Christian beliefs and therefore make salvation exclusive.  How is that just?

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 1
Link to post
15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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

Having a bad hair day? She gave a good analogy. 

Link to post
8 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I liked your post, but I am sure you realize that somebody does NOT have to be right. They weren't right for over a thousand years, and the world wondered after the beast. I like and appreciate Navidad, but the day is upon the world when those who believe that simply believing in Christ is enough will see differently. They will realize this error when they are left behind, but until that time they will persecute the truth, because it is just too different from what they were raised believing.

Well I suppose I did not say it well. I was too subtle I guess. I thought that my known relativism would make the point for me, but not so.

I thought I was cleverly quoting the folk rock song by Buffalo Springfield "For What It's Worth" with the line "Nobody's right if everybody's wrong", meaning that without some kind of standards, upon which people might disagree, there ARE no standards.

There are no nations without standardized borders to discuss, there can be no discussions about truth if it is all objectively clear and absolute.

Essentially I thought I was making the same point you are, that there is room for disagreement in the Kingdom, but that disagreement actually requires standards to discuss 

Link to post
38 minutes ago, juliann said:

Having a bad hair day? She gave a good analogy. 

Well at least we now have the fab four in lock step as usual.

But no, it wasn't 

Link to post
18 hours ago, Calm said:

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:

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. 

Here we go again I guess.  First of all, yes I said this but it is not a quote of mfbukowski unless my name appears on it.

That is why there is a quote function here so that one cannot make annonymous quotes without people knowing where they came from, and therefore impossible to follow a conversation.  So why do you think that function exists if it is irrelevant and useless?

Quote

I don’t see him doing that at all.

So you don't see the prophet encouraging us to go by the name "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints"??   Odd.  Did he say we should call ourselves "Christians"??  His entire point was that we should use the proper name of the Church and not other names.

Quote

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.

That is not my interpretation of what the prophet was teaching.  The whole point was to SEPARATE ourselves from others who follow Jesus, making us unique.

Quote

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. 

Are names used to help those who do NOT know one group from another or for the inner circle who knows the doctrine??

Because WE know we take upon ourselves the name of Jesus Christ does not mean that others do.   Names are for OTHERS to know us by, not ourselves.

Quote

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 Californian...and pledging allegiance to the American flag routinely with no concern. 

Poor analogy.

It is perfectly clear how those terms are defined- one is an "American" if one is a citizen of the USA.  

If one lives within the clear boundaries of California, one is a Californian.   

This entire discussion is about the ambiguity of the term Christian.  The term obviously does not have hard and fast definitions.

There is no comparison between finding criteria defining who a resident of California vs defining who is a "Christian" especially when one can choose that title for oneself without approval of anyone else, also shown in this thread.  :)

 

Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Here we go again I guess.  First of all, yes I said this but it is not a quote of mfbukowski unless my name appears on it.

That is why there is a quote function here so that one cannot make annonymous quotes without people knowing where they came from, and therefore impossible to follow a conversation.  So why do you think that function exists if it is irrelevant and useless?

Mark,

I posted directly after your post within an hour of your post and you apparently read my post within three hours of the original.  The original line is two lines above the unnamed quote.

I have always assumed anyone posting on the board had enough ability to track a conversation like that easily enough.  When I notice that there is a gap between posts, especially more than one or two, I do make an effort to put a name in.  Never really have when immediately following.  

I have used the quote at the end of the reply box, the quote selection, copy/paste into a quote box, and good old fashion " " on a whatever is easiest pattern.  Some of my tech is old and sometimes doesn't allow me to easily select something out to quote, so I do one of the others, or cut stuff off, or whatever works the quickest.

I also have never gotten upset that someone doesn't respond to a post of mine.  If I want a response from a specific poster and don't get one, I just ask for one...repeatedly if necessary occasionally.  Still don't get upset if someone doesn't respond.

I will be completely open about my expectations right now so hopefully you won't have false expectations and get frustrated by my posts or think I am trying to pull a fast one.  If I feel the need to offer a different opinion than one you express as I did in this post or post in agreement with you or go off on a rabbit trail, there is no need for you to respond to any of my posts ever again.  If you do, I may or may not respond to you.  Please, there is no need to construct anything out of any perceived habit or pattern or abscence or presence of a name or whatever in my posts save that I write about what I am interested in and don't care who reads it or who responds though I very much enjoy civil responses.  At most if someone doesn't respond there will be some curiosity about that person's position, but I don't have expectations or hurt feelings or resentment when someone skips a post accidentally, intentionally ignores me, or just isn't interested enough to respond to me...so feel free to respond or not to me as you want and I will do the same.

 Also it is becoming too dramatic to have a conversation with you too often, so I probably am going to have lots less, so if I don't respond to a question or comment of yours that has my name attached to it, feel free to assume I am ignoring you because that is likely the reason why I am not posting.  Since it usually comes across as petty to say "I am ignoring your post" imo, I am making this statement one time so you can judge whether or not you want to invest in a reply to one of my posts when there is a high probability .i won't respond.

Sorry for the length, but I wanted to avoid confusion for you as much as possible.  Take care,

Cal

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

fab four

UMW rules, ladies! @juliann @bluebell @Rain @and the rest of you!  :friends:

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2
Link to post
Posted (edited)

.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to post
2 hours ago, Calm said:

UMW rules, ladies! @juliann @bluebell @Rain @and the rest of you!  :friends:

So you do know how to insert names after all!

Secret combinations too, eh?

 

Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So you do know how to insert names after all!

Secret combinations too, eh?

 

I never said I didn’t know how. I tend to pick up how to do stuff pretty quickly. Like how to put someone on ignore...very easy. Let me know if you need help to find it.
 

Maybe you should go read what I said again before trying to take a dig. Missing the target can be so frustrating.

I thought everyone knew about UMW, especially since lots of us use it in our sigs. Where have you been?

Edited by Calm
Link to post
12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It is, but we add ordinances to our list, and you fault us for that.

You make no provision for the billions who have never heard your Christian beliefs and therefore make salvation exclusive.  How is that just?

Hi amigo: Trust all is well. I was gone all day yesterday taking my wife up to the states to the doc. Lots of border agents on both sides of the border! Very interesting trip that takes the entire day!

Two things - You add ordinances. I don't fault you at all for that; that is fairly common actually. I simply disagree with that from my understanding of scripture. I don't expect you to agree nor do I ask you to change your beliefs. I simply disagree. I hope that is ok.

Second, I have repeatedly said on this forum that I believe in a wideness in God's mercy. I have repeatedly said that I do not make salvation exclusive and folks seem not to read that or believe me in what I am saying. Christ will determine someone's eternal destiny by their faith, just like he did while on earth. I expect heaven to be populated by a large group of folks who have had a unique type of faith that I don't understand or comprehend. That is why Christ is part of the Godhead and I am not. His decision-making is way above my pay grade. Methinks that once in a while it comes out in a post that my friends on this forum already believe they have non-LDS Christians already all figured out. They dig back down into that well and draw from their a priori read or lived experiences and then apply what they "know" to all non-LDS Christians. I try and demonstrate the great diversity among non-LDS Christians.

So, I hope you read this particular post since it is in answer to you and let go of the twin towers of I fault you for what I disagree with you about and that I make no provision for the billions who have never heard. The other day I even wrote that I thought it was going to take a long time for Christ to judge each one of the 150 billion folks who have lived. Another poster assured me that Christ would have a computerized Book of Life because the LDS Church will have already "helped him" with His task. That was a fascinating revelation to me. That  is what I like about this forum. I learn something new every day!

Link to post
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Another poster assured me that Christ would have a computerized Book of Life because the LDS Church will have already "helped him" with His task. That was a fascinating revelation to me. That  is what I like about this forum. I learn something new every day

A possibility if he needs a memory aid, I suppose.  But first time I have ever heard of the idea.

I have heard unofficial teachings about the Book of Life in a few ways, such as our journals and family history books are our individualized Books of Life.  Also heard them called our personal scripture, a label shared with our patriarchal blessings.

I wish people would do a speculation alert for stuff that is more unusual.

"In one sense the Book of Life is the total of a person’s thoughts and actions—the record of his life. However, the scriptures also indicate that a heavenly record is kept of the faithful, including their names and accounts of their righteous deeds."

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/book-of-life?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/tg/book-of-life?lang=eng

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
Link to post
On 6/4/2020 at 5:45 AM, Hamba Tuhan said:

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?

Hi Hamba: I hope you will allow me a bit of a different interpretation of Christ's verbiage with the Jewish Leaders. It is certainly (I am starting to like that word) true that he was very hard on them. My sense is that you believe that was the case because they were Jews and as such worthy of his wrath for the inadequacy of their "Jewishness." I believe he was angry and verbally strong with them because he considered them as individuals to be corrupt and to have also corrupted the Covenant of the Law. He didn't claim that Jews were "white sepulchres." Pretty on the outside and full of dead stuff on the inside. He made that claim to specific individuals. Christ always treated folks as individuals - not as members of a group. That is a great tribute to him in a time when folks were quite divided into camps. So he individually blasted corrupt people for that very thing.

That is I think, where you analogy breaks down. You identify all non-LDS Christians as a class. That class is incapable of making the necessary covenants, ordinances, etc. to receive  eternal life in the presence of Christ and the Father. You name the entire class of Christians who are not LDS Christians. As I said before, Christ never disavowed his Jewishness. He was born, lived, and died a Jew. He criticized individuals who he knew to be corrupt, not who he knew to be Jewish. If I understand you correctly you are drawing an analogy between the early Christians and Christ himself to the LDS Church. Perhaps that analogy is more appropriate to what became the Catholic church and the LDS Church. Just my thoughts.

One more thing, just out of curiosity. You have made the comment several times that things I say indicate that I don't "get" LDS doctrine. Well that is one reason I am here. What is it that I am missing? What am I characterizing in a wrong way? That is not a challenge; just a desire to better understand, especially if I am miss-stating something about LDS doctrine of salvation and eternal life. Thanks!

Link to post
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Navidad said:

That class is incapable of making the necessary covenants, ordinances, etc. to receive  eternal life in the presence of Christ and the Father.

How are they "incapable" to receive?

(I ask because this to me is one of the things that makes it sound like you don't get it, Saints at least would generally not see others as "incapable" of receiving such.)

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...