Praying for the dead

[bOObOO]

6 hours ago, Esrom said:

You are mistaken.  The link below documents 240 incidences of speaking in tongues in the early restoration, which you may be surprised to learn was frequent, and involved church leaders (Brigham and Joseph) as well as the rank and file until it gradually diminished in the early 1900's.  Most of these did not involve speaking a foreign language to cross a language barrier for gospel preaching (which is considered by most members to be the only modern acceptable use of the gift), but involved praying and singing in tongues among English speaking members during worship or blessings.  Often it was believed to be the pure Adamic language, which just might appear to someone as "gibberish".  What does any language sound like to one unfamiliar with it???  Gibberish of course!  

https://mormon-chronicles.blogspot.com/2014/03/chronology-speaking-in-tongues-in.html

Also, the Book of Mormon includes references to speaking in tongues as a gift of the spirit, in the context of conversion, without reference to resolving a language barrier.  Dr. Chris Thomas, a Pentecostal theologian and author of "A Pentecostal reads the Book of Mormon", has commented often on the similarities between spiritual experiences described in the Book of Mormon and those of Pentecostals.

Interestingly, the church website acknowledges two uses of tongues: 1) as an " important" part of worship (that faded out) and for 2) proselytizing to persons speaking a different language:

"Glossalalia continued as an important part of Latter-day Saint worship during the rest of the 19th century, though the practice gradually declined over time and all but disappeared in the early 20th century."

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/gift-of-tongues?lang=eng

I learned a long time ago not to denigrate others' spiritual experiences.  Latter-day Saints don't appreciate being caricatured by others for certain beliefs/practices, so showing respect for others beliefs/practices and  is a two way street.  Can any spiritual gift be mis-used or over emphasized?  Yes.  But that doesn't erase the genuine two-fold use of the gift of tongues, which as I've cited, is acknowledged by the church.  

Paul the NT apostle counseled that when someone spoke in a tongue there should be an interpreter present to clarify what was being said, that all present may be edified together.  Speaking in any tongue should be understood to be of any good use.

Regarding praying for the dead, Islander has clarified that he was referring to how Catholics pray for those who they believe are in a place called Purgatory where they believe they can be purified from their sins. In LDS vernacular I think we call that Hell.

Hmm.  I'll ponder that for a while. Maybe I should pray for people who are in Hell once I figure out what to say to God about that.

[mfbukowski]

On 8/18/2021 at 8:20 PM, Islander said:

Rather circular and skewed, as logic is concerned. Christ and our Heavenly Father are not dead. But again, feel free to do as you please. Everybody alludes to "logic" and history. I remain firm in my point. It is not supported in scripture, from the LDS standpoint. 

 

Then how did heavenly Father become exalted if he did not "die" some"time" and some "where" else in some eternity before earth was created?

Was He some kind of ex nihilo being who popped into existence somehow? Where did he get his body of flesh, bone and spirit?

[mfbukowski]

On 8/18/2021 at 7:16 PM, Islander said:

Talk about ill-informed Catholic. The prayer for the dead a well established Catholics dogma: What exactly is purgatory? The Catechism says, “All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification” (1030–1031). That’s precisely why you pray and offer Masses for those in purgatory. As Catholic scripture claims, your intercession helps them: “For it is . . . a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins” (2 Maccabees 12:46, Douay).PT

Again, that is outside LDS theology (wich was my only point of argument) and is NOT supported by scripture, from where I stand.

Not at all.

It is pretty precisely what we term "spirit prison".

to put it in the vernacular, it'swhere people hang out until they get their acts together.  It's a temporary holding tank.

[3DOP]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Not at all.

It is pretty precisely what we term "spirit prison".

to put it in the vernacular, it'swhere people hang out until they get their acts together.  It's a temporary holding tank.

Mark. Hi!

I have said this before. 

Everybody that is Christian believes in a "purgatory". Between earth and heaven, those who enjoy exaltation cannot even sin anymore or want to sin. I have not heard of the Christian sect, or any successful error of any kind, that teaches that "sin" (misbehaviour), occurs in the happy place after death.  Catholics go farther than most in saying that the process is gradual, and involves some suffering...but a happy...glad...and resigned kind of suffering. Graduality can occur in a split second or in a thousand years or more. I can see how non-Catholic Christians would doubt our ideas about suffering and a graduality that can be measured chronologically, but all Christians believe that those who gain eternal life are changed and indeed purged (from which the name purgatory arises). None of the saints in heaven can sin anymore, nor do they want to according to any successful error, or a claimed to be one true church. The happy born agains know what is good and they are perfectly attached to the good. It might not be taught as a process for non-Catholics, but for everybody, between earth and heaven something happens, that makes for perfection. Call it by a different name. A lot of people are still anti-Catholic and don't want to think that they believe in "purgatory" because that is what those Catholics believe in. But everybody that believes in eternal perfection (sinless and loving devotion to God which results in joyful obedience) also believes in a "purgatory" of some kind. I would suggest that Purgatory therefore, is not distinctly Catholic. All Christians are more agreed about this than we are disagreed, including I suspect, Islander.  

Edited August 23, 2021 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

On 8/20/2021 at 3:21 AM, mfbukowski said:

Then how did heavenly Father become exalted if he did not "die" some"time" and some "where" else in some eternity before earth was created?

Was He some kind of ex nihilo being who popped into existence somehow? Where did he get his body of flesh, bone and spirit?

Upvote for sure. Not that I agree...but it is consistent! You guys (not you, ever) sometimes seem like you believe what we do about God. I am glad that you see that you cannot have such cake as well as eating it.

Even our (Catholic) Jesus could not get His body from an incorporeal Father. His human body is entirely from His Mother. One sees the resemblance in most theologically accurate Catholic art.

Edited August 23, 2021 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Mark. Hi!

I have said this before. 

Everybody that is Christian believes in a "purgatory". Between earth and heaven, those who enjoy exaltation cannot even sin anymore or want to sin. I have not heard of the Christian sect, or any successful error of any kind, that teaches that "sin" (misbehaviour), occurs in the happy place after death.  Catholics go farther than most in saying that the process is gradual, and involves some suffering...but a happy...glad...and resigned kind of suffering. Graduality can occur in a split second or in a thousand years or more. I can see how non-Catholic Christians would doubt our ideas about suffering and a graduality that can be measured chronologically, but all Christians believe that those who gain eternal life are changed and indeed purged (from which the name purgatory arises). None of the saints in heaven can sin anymore, nor do they want to according to any successful error, or a claimed to be one true church. The happy born agains know what is good and they are perfectly attached to the good. It might not be taught as a process for non-Catholics, but for everybody, between earth and heaven something happens, that makes for perfection. Call it by a different name. A lot of people are still anti-Catholic and don't want to think that they believe in "purgatory" because that is what those Catholics believe in. But everybody that believes in eternal perfection (sinless and loving devotion to God which results in joyful obedience) also believes in a "purgatory" of some kind. I would suggest that Purgatory therefore, is not distinctly Catholic. All Christians are more agreed about this than we are disagreed, including I suspect, Islander.  

Agree. Purgatory fits perfectly with the Bosom of Abraham and what we call Spirit Prison.  It is an ancient Doctrine 

No discernable difference that I can see.

Edited August 23, 2021 by mfbukowski

[bOObOO]

15 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Mark. Hi!

I have said this before. 

Everybody that is Christian believes in a "purgatory". Between earth and heaven, those who enjoy exaltation cannot even sin anymore or want to sin. I have not heard of the Christian sect, or any successful error of any kind, that teaches that "sin" (misbehaviour), occurs in the happy place after death.  Catholics go farther than most in saying that the process is gradual, and involves some suffering...but a happy...glad...and resigned kind of suffering. Graduality can occur in a split second or in a thousand years or more. I can see how non-Catholic Christians would doubt our ideas about suffering and a graduality that can be measured chronologically, but all Christians believe that those who gain eternal life are changed and indeed purged (from which the name purgatory arises). None of the saints in heaven can sin anymore, nor do they want to according to any successful error, or a claimed to be one true church. The happy born agains know what is good and they are perfectly attached to the good. It might not be taught as a process for non-Catholics, but for everybody, between earth and heaven something happens, that makes for perfection. Call it by a different name. A lot of people are still anti-Catholic and don't want to think that they believe in "purgatory" because that is what those Catholics believe in. But everybody that believes in eternal perfection (sinless and loving devotion to God which results in joyful obedience) also believes in a "purgatory" of some kind. I would suggest that Purgatory therefore, is not distinctly Catholic. All Christians are more agreed about this than we are disagreed, including I suspect, Islander.  

Well, when you put it that way, I can see that you are more right about this than you are wrong, and maybe not very much wrong.  Yes, we do believe in a purging of our sinful nature.  We most often think of it as the work of the Holy Spirit to cleanse us by fire, a type of baptism that should ideally come soon after being baptized in water.  We must still choose to resist temptation, which should be easy to do as something we want to resist, and instead choose only good things to do with our minds and our time and our talents and whatever else the Lord has given us or may give us as we dedicate ourselves to building up the kingdom of God on this planet.  Sin should be something we abhor, or to use another term, hate.  We should hate sin and want to get rid of all sin, at least in our own lives.  And it shouldn't surprise any saint to hear that they can go without committing any sin for days and even weeks and yes even years at a time.  To someone who sins often, choosing to sin instead of resisting temptation, that may seem like an impossible feat, but it isn't impossible at all with God's help.  I have gone for long periods of time without committing any sins, so I know from experience that it is possible.  We can be good, or we can be bad.  The power to choose is within us.

Edited August 23, 2021 by bOObOO

[Islander]

On 8/9/2021 at 9:12 PM, 3DOP said:

Calm...That has to be the situation. To be fair, Islander probably wasn't complaining about our putting ourselves physically into the coffin, but of our prayers for the person in the coffin. He doesn't have our Scriptures. We don't have yours. Language barriers notwithstanding, it is plain from ours that we Catholics believe it is good to pray for the dead, whether their bodies, which will rise again, praise God, be in the coffin at a Requiem Mass or in the ground. Mom's grave is in walking distance. I am glad I was persuaded to bury her here. I hated the thought of Dad thousands of miles away, with a grave stone and Mom missing. I never knew how meaningful it could be to regularly visit a loved one's grave. Affections spring up every time, and Dad gets more prayers with Mom here. He is not abandoned. He is thought of more than ever. It would appear that a consensus of LDS here tend to agree that this is permissible.

"It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins."

---2 Maccabees 12Y:46

This verse was written well over a century before the birth of Christ and even if one doesn't accept it as Scripture, reflects a significant light on the thinking of the Jewish people, who when Christ came, still had valid priestly ordinances. Catholics didn't preserve this text. It came down to us from a militant Judaism that was re-establishing the kingdom of David against a wicked pagan culture. They seem like the good guys to me. 

My ability, and at times willingness, to engage in these endless debates is finite. So I will be brief and move on to other things.

We are not going to agree in regards to the the Apocryphal books which were never accepted by the Jews as authoritative. Tose were written during the "silent years" wen there was no authorized prophet on the earth and for all practical purposes God did not direct or commanded anyone to write those things. They are 100% the work of men. The early Church rejected them and later the Reformers followed suit. Beyond that, you can allude to anything you want; private interpretations, extrapolations, feeling, desires or lack of apparent "harm" to support your desire and practice to pray for the dead. But if we are to be intellectually honest, you would have to admit that within the 39 books of the Bible, there is no theological support for such practice. 

I pointed to passages in the bible wen certain people did something they "though/believe" was right or appropriate, given the circumstances. And God thought otherwise and His response to the violation of His prescribed order of worship was swift, punitive which made that patently clear. That is undeniable. But feel free to do as you please. 

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, Islander said:

My ability, and at times willingness, to engage in these endless debates is finite. So I will be brief and move on to other things.

Do you imagine that anyone thinks that your abilities or willingness to do any activity is infinite? Since you are moving on to other things, I will take the last word. Thanks.

1 hour ago, Islander said:

But if we are to be intellectually honest, you would have to admit that within the 39 books of the Bible, there is no theological support for such practice. 

One can be mistaken without being guilty of intellectual dishonesty. You do not know me as well as many of the people on this board do. I have been here 17 years without being accused of intellectual dishonesty. Stupidity and ignorance? Maybe. Wrong? Certainly. But you and I have had not enough interaction in your short time here for you to have such a suspicion like this about me. Nor do I think, you can see into my mind. Like you said, you have finite ability. You would have to know that I actually believe the same thing as you about what the rest of your abbreviated 66 book Bible (not 39, see below) says in support of purgatory to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty. Is this plausible? I cannot imagine ever being willing to lie to support my religion. All the peace in my soul would vanish, my faith would be lost, and I would not want to defend Catholicism anymore if it requires lies to be defended. My life would fall apart if I deliberately defended falsehoods that I knew to be falsehoods. But my conscience is clear, I know I disagree with you about the absence of any biblical support for this belief of the Catholic faith.

Therefore, although I could be wrong merely, I categorically deny your assertion that for me to be intellectual honest, I must now "admit that within the 39 books (sic) of the Bible, there is no theological support for such practice" (as prayers for the dead in purgatory). 

Take care,

3DOP

PS: To all,

Dave Waltz tells this story about him calling a particular "anti-cult ministry" many years ago. They had done some kind of apologetics piece about the LDS faith, and I think Dave pointed out some factual error in one of their arguments. I don't remember the details, but I can never forget the answer he says that they gave him. The answer he got back, was that they knew it wasn't true, but that it works! What a horror it would be to face God on that day telling Him that I lied, "because it worked"? What could that even mean? To get people to the truth, one must sometimes lie to them? What does it imply about service to God? What presumption and arrogance to think God needs his truest followers and loving children to tell a deliberate falsehood to advance His cause. 

So anyway, I know that the phenomenon of intellectual dishonesty exists. May we all be preserved from such fearful folly. I hope I toned things down enough up above. If perhaps someone thinks I overreacted, maybe you can see why Islander's words struck a nerve with me.

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, Islander said:

.But if we are to be intellectually honest, you would have to admit that within the 39 books of the Bible, there is no theological support for such practice. 

I disagree.  Christ's great intercessory prayer was for the dead, the living, and the premortal.  He prayed on all our behalf.

And I think God has zero problem with any prayer of love for our fellow man.

[Navidad]

On 8/7/2021 at 3:43 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Within one's own tradition that may all be very well, but the question is whether we need to treat others with tolerance and kindness -- something frequently denied to us by those who are rigid and intolerant.  We live in a pluralistic society, and we need to do more than just give it lip service.  We need to be good neighbors.

I applaud this statement and gave you a like for it - the only thing I know how to do to affirm something that someone has said. By this reply, I am also affirming it in words. I do however, sometimes get confused by comments on this forum. For example in your several replies to this thread you seem to acknowledge that it is loving, kind, and tolerant  and good to acknowledge that different groups have differing ordinances and that the same ordinances performed in different ways should be tolerated in a kind and loving manner, yet you draw the line of recognizing the efficacy of the same outside of LDS authority. That confuses me. How is it kind and loving to tolerate and treat with kindness the number and manner of ordinances, but at the same time deny the very efficacy and effect of the same when performed by non-LDS Christian leaders who lead and perform those ordinances via the authority granted by God and the Holy Spirit within their own faith tradition? I struggle to get my head around that. Do you really believe the LDS Church to be the sum and total of the New Testament church (the ekklesia - the called out ones) in this dispensation? The LDS church is the only bride of Christ in the world today? Methinks that makes the other 99 percent of us harlots - illegitimate brides? You seem to advocate onliness, kindness, and tolerance. I really struggle with that combination. If so, then I guess that is the pivotal point where we part ways. I confess I can't get my head around that. Thanks.

[Navidad]

On 7/21/2021 at 10:03 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

the sophistry of the antagonists

Wow, that quite a term. I have to remember that one. Quite eloquent. Thanks.

[Navidad]

On 8/9/2021 at 2:11 AM, mfbukowski said:

We who are converts KNOW that everything is NOT in scripture or we would not be able to find the church in the first place.

I like this. Well said. It is why I pray daily for greater understanding. It is also why I spend time on this forum. There are many ways to gain information, knowledge and most importantly wisdom in this world. That is why God made us with intelligence and rationality.

[Navidad]

On 8/9/2021 at 3:14 PM, mfbukowski said:

Yes, but still irrelevant.

WE ALSO HAVE OPEN CASKET CEREMONIES AND WE PRAY FOR THE DEAD IN TEMPLES ETC.

So then is he also condemning LDS practices?

Just trying to figure what side this guy is on?

How many "sides" are there?

[Navidad]

On 8/22/2021 at 9:29 PM, 3DOP said:

The happy born agains know what is good and they are perfectly attached to the good

Hi my friend. I find your use of the third person here very interesting. I am interested in how your previous "born again" experience relates to, or integrates with your current Catholic identity? I have an equal interest in how LDS identity works in correlation within someone who previously, let's say was Baptist prior to converting to the LDS faith. I hope that makes sense.

My question assumes that at one time in your life you claimed a born again experience and probably preached and taught the same. When you became Catholic, how did that change, complete, amend, or influence your sense of self as having been born again? Your use of the third person causes me to think that maybe you now reject that identity for yourself? That is a question, not a statement. You obviously have experienced differing spiritual identities in your life including being born again and being Catholic. I am wondering how those identities fit together in your sense of self? Do you see yourself as a born again Catholic? I think I kind of like that concept! When you converted to Catholicism were you rebaptized or was your previous baptism accepted as sufficient? I am not sure I asked this well. I hope my questions makes sense.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

How many "sides" are there?

How many humans have and will exist?

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

I like this. Well said. It is why I pray daily for greater understanding. It is also why I spend time on this forum. There are many ways to gain information, knowledge and most importantly wisdom in this world. That is why God made us with intelligence and rationality.

What father wants questioning children?

We learn from the LDS "fortunate fall" that apparently Our Father Who art in heaven did!

That is one bit of LDS Doctrine that makes us completely unique in Christendom 

 

Edited August 31, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

I applaud this statement and gave you a like for it - the only thing I know how to do to affirm something that someone has said. By this reply, I am also affirming it in words. I do however, sometimes get confused by comments on this forum. For example in your several replies to this thread you seem to acknowledge that it is loving, kind, and tolerant  and good to acknowledge that different groups have differing ordinances and that the same ordinances performed in different ways should be tolerated in a kind and loving manner, yet you draw the line of recognizing the efficacy of the same outside of LDS authority. That confuses me. How is it kind and loving to tolerate and treat with kindness the number and manner of ordinances, but at the same time deny the very efficacy and effect of the same when performed by non-LDS Christian leaders who lead and perform those ordinances via the authority granted by God and the Holy Spirit within their own faith tradition? I struggle to get my head around that. Do you really believe the LDS Church to be the sum and total of the New Testament church (the ekklesia - the called out ones) in this dispensation? The LDS church is the only bride of Christ in the world today? Methinks that makes the other 99 percent of us harlots - illegitimate brides? You seem to advocate onliness, kindness, and tolerance. I really struggle with that combination. If so, then I guess that is the pivotal point where we part ways. I confess I can't get my head around that. Thanks.

That is a common response of those who do not truly accept pluralism.  We need to get past our own traditions and acknowledge the existence of other traditions.  That does not mean that those traditions are ultimately true in the objective sense, but that they do exist and are zealously held to be true by some of our neighbors.  Those neighbors may be Muslim Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Catholic, atheist, or some sort of Christian (plenty of those of many denominations).  Some of those traditions hold themselves to be exclusively true, and may even dominate in countries or regions where they have absolute legal authority to impose their views.

Some Western societies are very pluralistic.  That does not mean that those outside a particular faith tradition consider the competing faith tradition true, but only that a good neighbor respects the right of everyone to worship how and what he desires.  Tolerance does not mean that all must adopt a competing lifestyle.  My tolerance of legally binding same sex marriage does not mean that I must adopt ssm.  Only that I respect those who choose that lifestyle.  They have rights same as me.  At the same time, they must respect my right to believe that their form of marriage is immoral and wrong as a matter of faith, not law.  That means that I support and agree with the Supreme Court decision making ssm legal, not that I recommend that lifestyle.  It puzzles me that some people don't understand that difference.

I understand very well that Roman Catholics consider the Pope to be the deputy of God on Earth and the holder of the keys of Peter, just I expect them to understand that the LDS Church president is considered by his flock to be the actual chief high priest of God on Earth who holds those very keys.  These are mutually exclusive claims, but we can be mutually respectful about it in a pluralistic society.  Do you agree?

Of course "Christian leaders who lead and perform .... ordinances via the authority granted by God and the Holy Spirit within their own faith tradition" do reflect their own faith tradition, but that does not mean in any sense that other religious traditions will agree with them.  You know very well that the LDS Church claims exclusive priesthood authority to perform any and all divine ordinances, and that other churches do not have such authority.  That does not mean that LDS members will be found outside a local non-LDS church or synagogue mocking those arriving for services.  In fact, local LDS leaders regularly participate in interfaith councils and projects for the betterment of society.

There are indeed many Americans who reject pluralism, and who are very uncomfortable with the notion that someone may have differing religious views.  That was certainly true during the American Colonial period in which intolerance prevailed and people were deeply persecuted for being in a minority.  I always hope that we can do better.  Do you think that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is enough?  What more needs to be done?

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

How many humans have and will exist?

at least 150 billion.

 

[Chum]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

My question assumes that at one time in your life you claimed a born again experience and probably preached and taught the same. When you became Catholic, how did that change, complete, amend, or influence your sense of self as having been born again?

I was raised Catholic, later converted to Evangelicalism, later baptized into the Church.

Evangelical Christianity came with overt hostility toward other Christina faiths, so I turned my back Catholicism when I was born again. When I was baptized into the Church, I eventually turned against Evangelicalism. It wasn't because of the Church; it was my disdain for Evangelicals' endless attacks on other faiths (thankfully much decreased following Romney's nomination).

I now hold Catholicism in high regard, partially due to Church teachings.

[Navidad]

19 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That does not mean that LDS members will be found outside a local non-LDS church or synagogue mocking those arriving for services.  In fact, local LDS leaders regularly participate in interfaith councils and projects for the betterment of society.

I don't want to take up any more space and time with this. I will simply thank you and point out one thing from this part of your kind reply.

It is true that I won't probably find LDS members outside a non-LDS church mocking those who attend. But I sure do find LDS members mocking us on this forum, in the ward, at Sunday dinners, at LDS-related meetings I attend - etc. By not even remotely trying to present a fair and unbiased perspective or to understand evangelical diversity, that is perhaps the worst form of dismissal and negation of our faith. "I have the truth . Why would I want to learn more about the faith of someone who doesn't?" I have heard those words over and over again. We (non-LDS Christians) must all be pretending. I don't think folks here understand how deeply it hurts to be spiritually dismissed because of the LDS doctrines of onliness. Deeply. I have scores, if not hundreds of LDS friends who I respect and love. For them to reject the validity of my faith, baptism, sense of the Holy Spirit, and blessed assurance that I have been  washed clean by blood of the atoning lamb - that is deeply personal and deeply hurtful. It is especially so when done by a people I have come to love.

 

[bOObOO]

16 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I don't want to take up any more space and time with this. I will simply thank you and point out one thing from this part of your kind reply.

It is true that I won't probably find LDS members outside a non-LDS church mocking those who attend. But I sure do find LDS members mocking us on this forum, in the ward, at Sunday dinners, at LDS-related meetings I attend - etc. By not even remotely trying to present a fair and unbiased perspective or to understand evangelical diversity, that is perhaps the worst form of dismissal and negation of our faith. "I have the truth . Why would I want to learn more about the faith of someone who doesn't?" I have heard those words over and over again. We (non-LDS Christians) must all be pretending. I don't think folks here understand how deeply it hurts to be spiritually dismissed because of the LDS doctrines of onliness. Deeply. I have scores, if not hundreds of LDS friends who I respect and love. For them to reject the validity of my faith, baptism, sense of the Holy Spirit, and blessed assurance that I have been  washed clean by blood of the atoning lamb - that is deeply personal and deeply hurtful. It is especially so when done by a people I have come to love.

 

Try to consider this from our perspective, instead of your own.  We sincerely believe you have some false beliefs.  That is a fact.  You may believe all your beliefs are true for as long as you want to believe that, but when we see or hear you say things which we believe are false ideas we then have 2 choices.  We can either say nothing to you about your ideas which we believe are false, not even hinting that we think you are wrong about those ideas, or we could speak up and say something to try to help correct what we see as a false idea.  In theory there could be another option, I suppose,  We could think you are right and that we are wrong on an issue, and that we should maybe consider abandoning our belief and accept your idea instead, but I think that is not likely to happen, probably with about the same odds of you abandoning one of your ideas and accepting one of our ideas as your own.  We all believe we are guided by God who tries to help us to know what is true, I think.  So I think we're stuck in this situation.

Edited August 31, 2021 by bOObOO

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

at least 150 billion.

 

That's a lot of opinions! Which ONE is right?

Clearly MINE only, and everyone else burns.

 

[bOObOO]

21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

That's a lot of opinions! Which ONE is right?

Clearly MINE only, and everyone else burns.

 

But other people could agree with you.  And then they would be right, too.  And it would be not only your opinion, but also theirs too.  So only the people with that opinion would be right.  Only that opinion, and only those people who had it would be right.

I like it when I am right about something, even when I am not one of the onliness ones who is right.  In fact the more people who are right the more I like being one of the onliness ones who is right. But I still like being right even if I am not the onliness ones.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

.........................

It is true that I won't probably find LDS members outside a non-LDS church mocking those who attend. But I sure do find LDS members mocking us on this forum, in the ward, at Sunday dinners, at LDS-related meetings I attend - etc. By not even remotely trying to present a fair and unbiased perspective or to understand evangelical diversity, that is perhaps the worst form of dismissal and negation of our faith. "I have the truth . Why would I want to learn more about the faith of someone who doesn't?" I have heard those words over and over again. We (non-LDS Christians) must all be pretending. I don't think folks here understand how deeply it hurts to be spiritually dismissed because of the LDS doctrines of onliness. Deeply. I have scores, if not hundreds of LDS friends who I respect and love. For them to reject the validity of my faith, baptism, sense of the Holy Spirit, and blessed assurance that I have been  washed clean by blood of the atoning lamb - that is deeply personal and deeply hurtful. It is especially so when done by a people I have come to love.

We have been over this ground before, and I feel that the shoe is on the other foot.  These hurtful LDS members you speak of are unknown to me.  They may not accept your aggressive and authoritative claims, and that may hurt your feelings, but they are not obligated to believe in your version of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Instead of being tolerant of differing points of view, you generally attempt to call into question the views of others, and to accuse others of this or that bad attitude or fault.  Fault-finding is not an auspicious approach to tolerance and pluralism.  I suggest that you spend more time in finding commonality among your diverse friends and acquaintances instead of trying to sell them on your POV.  Restraint is called for by all parties.