True, truth, truer, truest, or false?

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Why not start one?

Hi Bernard - I just might, but it is on my list of things not to talk about. Take care.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

Thanks so very much for all the helpful replies so far. I want to emphasize that my question is strictly about what you all think or opine about the issue. What I think is completely irrelevant to the context and discussion. Actually my questioning comes from my trying to figure out about truth in general in this sense . . . It seems to me that there are truths (small t) that are experiential in nature. They are extremely true to the one who experiences them, but not to others. Experiential truths can be conflicting while still quite profound (important and true) to the believer. These type of truths can widely differ and still be true for the believer.

Then as a person of faith I also believe in a few absolute Truths (with a capital T). Here folks differ because they differ in what to them, is absolute. I think a person's certainty about something impacts his or her concept of absoluteness. Much religious conflict is about differing and competing absolute Truths. Perhaps as was used by someone, these are even exclusive Truths. Certitude about these often move doctrine to dogma. This dogmatism kicks in and Katie-bar-the-door (whatever that means)

Then, of course I think both experiential and absolute (truth with a small t and a capital T) come down to personal perception. Even our experience of the Holy Spirit goes through a self-imposed and maintained set of filters. Of course as a person of strong faith, I am interested in all of this; I am also writing a book right now about a big current issue in public education in which all parties claim to have truth about the the issue. Methinks most all of us sometimes confuse experiential and absolute truth; some acknowledge that and others don't. My goodness, historians can't even come to agreement about basic historical events and personages in Mexican history! Move that into a context of conflicts due to religion and that multiplies things by ten-fold. Perhaps a bit more on this later if it seems to be of interest. Thanks.

This is a huge portion of contemporary philosophy, if you want references, pm me.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, rpn said:

I'm not sure why we say it either.   We get testimonies of principles, not of buildings, or people, or programs or history.  

Wish I could give you more points.

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Navidad said:

I thought the LDS church was exclusive. So I returned a short while back with a list of things I should not say this time around. So now you say it ("an exclusivistic element") and I doubt anyone will disagree with you! I guess it is a matter of the outsider better not say it until he or she becomes an insider!

No, there are two meanings at least of "exclusive ".

One means you have to be special to get into the exclusive club, or heaven. We are totally NOT exclusive in that. Everyone gets a shot even after death. Not exclusive.

We ARE exclusive about the priesthood and our ordinances. Who else tells you you can be like God??

No other Christians

Only place you can get those ordinances,  according to the paradigm. But you CAN do that after death- no penalties.

So 2 meanings

Edited July 28, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

There is exclusive in the sense of being unique…the only one offering something.  There is exclusive in limiting who has access.

Iow…the difference between a private country club that only lets anyone into the dining area to eat if they have a certain level of income and are wearing expensive clothing that shows off their income and a restaurant offering a one of a kind speciality, but inexpensive dish to anyone willing to walk through the door and pay for it.  And the restaurant may require shoes and shirt for service, but hands them out to anyone who shows up without if they ask as long as they put them on.  
 

And the restaurant will help you find a job so you can buy their food if you lack money.

 

I may have made the analogy too cluttered by trying to make it closer to the church experience of “exclusive”…yes, we have something no one else has; yes, everyone is invited to join us; yes, we require a few behaviors before joining; yes, those behaviours are possible for almost anyone (exceptions generally made for those who want to behave a certain way, but can’t).

There you go. Same thing I said, so she must be right

 

[Rain]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hi Calm: In my personal experience it was very common. As the pastor (bishop) I would not have given a second thought to whether someone wanted to join or not. We never required folks to join to take any position in the church except on the deacons board. Many of our faithful attendees kept their membership back in their home church some states away. Membership in our church had no correlation with salvation. These folks were already committed, baptized Christians. That was enough for us. Of course there was one caveat. The local church baseball league required that to play for a church in the church league, one had to join that church. This was to prevent "ringers" playing for different churches. That and the deacon board were the only exceptions I can think of.

We have a new bishopric now so it is a bit scary for us to see what the new rules might be. I don't want to exaggerate or be a pain; I really don't. But I don't think that many of the folks realize how painful it is to receive the "go away closer" messages that we often get. It is hard on me, but it is terribly painful on my dear wife who is so kind, sweet, and godly. The majority of the ladies are also kind, sweet, and godly and I don't think they know exactly how to relate to her. They love her for the same reasons I do, but there is a barrier that I guess will simply never be overcome. Sorry for being a pain. I didn't mean for that to happen when I came back here.

Is it possible that you are seeing a much bigger barrier there than there is? 

It's not like the only hurtful things said are to those who are not members.  One time a sister in our ward said a hurtful thing about me to the whole relief society class.  I remember my face flaming up and I was hurt and embarrassed. But 30 seconds later the Spirit was telling me, "she must not have a lot of good in her life to treat you that way."

So I started visiting her at home.  She was very lonely.  She was a widow whose kids didn't live close and didn't visit often. 

It was amazing to see the change in her.  She really looked forward to our visits.  She greeted me kindly at church.  It wasn't long before she passed away so I was so glad I got to know her better.

So there is a barrier between you and church members.  It is natural.  It happens all around us everywhere in any group we are in.  I see it in my own life in different groups.  But when I acknowledge that and realize it's ok and I start focusing on them instead of my self then that barrier isn't so important any more.  

Yours and your wife's feeling of hurt are valid.  No one should be saying those things because it is hurtful. They are in the wrong if they are mean or hurtful, but neither I, nor you, can change them any more than I could change the woman I talked about.  But focus on making them feel loved and welcome and maybe you will find that the barrier isn't near as big anymore even if they never change.

Edited July 28, 2021 by Rain

[mfbukowski]

53 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hi Calm: In my personal experience it was very common. As the pastor (bishop) I would not have given a second thought to whether someone wanted to join or not. We never required folks to join to take any position in the church except on the deacons board. Many of our faithful attendees kept their membership back in their home church some states away. Membership in our church had no correlation with salvation. These folks were already committed, baptized Christians. That was enough for us. Of course there was one caveat. The local church baseball league required that to play for a church in the church league, one had to join that church. This was to prevent "ringers" playing for different churches. That and the deacon board were the only exceptions I can think of.

We have a new bishopric now so it is a bit scary for us to see what the new rules might be. I don't want to exaggerate or be a pain; I really don't. But I don't think that many of the folks realize how painful it is to receive the "go away closer" messages that we often get. It is hard on me, but it is terribly painful on my dear wife who is so kind, sweet, and godly. The majority of the ladies are also kind, sweet, and godly and I don't think they know exactly how to relate to her. They love her for the same reasons I do, but there is a barrier that I guess will simply never be overcome. Sorry for being a pain. I didn't mean for that to happen when I came back here.

But for you, suppose the person attending for years was Buddhist and did not want to become Christian. That is a clear analogy.

You regard all Christians as "members"

[smac97]

13 hours ago, Navidad said:

Quote

Quote

Perhaps some folks are a bit stuck in a model where the outsider can only be either an investigator or a critic.

There are plenty of people who are not interested in joining our faith, but who like and respect us, and/or who want to work with us in areas of common interest and belief, etc.

I agree it shouldn't be that way. But unfortunately for us it is.

I'm not sure I understand.

13 hours ago, Navidad said:

We don't want to "work with you in areas of common interest and belief, etc." We want to worship, fellowship, and enjoy supporting the sick and needy,  and minister to the unreached with you. That is a huge difference. There simply is no way to do that in LDS polity without joining.

There seems to be a mixed bag here.  A person who wants to "worship" with the Latter-day Saints will have some difficulty doing so without moving toward the "unity of faith" espoused by Paul.  The saving ordinances matter.  New scripture matters.  Living prophets and apostles matter.

That said, there sure seems to be an awful lot that we can do together.  We can work alongside each other.  We can pray together.  We can support the sick and the needy.

13 hours ago, Navidad said:

There is no way to join without submitting to rebaptism, which in your tradition is an acknowledgment that ours was somehow deficit.

"We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."  (AoF 1:5.)

I think the restoration of the Priesthood, and the attendant founding and maintaining of the Church, are important parts of the Restoration.  We can't baptize without authority.  We cannot bless and pass the Sacrament without authority.  We can't officiate in temple ordinances without authority.  We can't receive new scripture without authority.  

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."  (Matthew 7:21-23.)

I believe the will of God was to restore priesthood authority and other vital things through Joseph Smith, to establish a church lead by prophets and apostles vested with that authority, to call and set apart missionaries to preach the Restored Gospel, to build and enter into temples to officiate in sacred ordinances for our dead, to tithe into the Lord's storehouse, and so on.  These are wonderful things.  They are not preferences or traditions.  They are mandates.

The Restored Gospel is built on and around the concept of authority.  "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord."  (Ephesians 2:19-21.)

13 hours ago, Navidad said:

You have most likely never been outside of the LDS church looking in.

I have spent quite a bit of time interacting with and talking with people on the "outside ... looking in."  And I have had to have my own journey to internalize the Restored Gospel.  To catch the vision of it, or some of the vision.

13 hours ago, Navidad said:

With all due respect to all your wisdom and knowledge, you have no idea what it is like. 

I think I have some idea.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 28, 2021 by smac97

[Kevin Christensen]

Regarding Navidad's question, 

Quote

What is the essence of what a member is saying when he or she says “the church is true?” Is it a kind of a correlation to D&C 1:30, therefore it is the “only” true? Does the use of the word true in that context fit into one or more of the above Merriam-Webster definitions?

I've given this a lot of thought over the years, especially regarding the tension between the popular expression "the church is true" and the formal statement of "mine authority and the authority of my servants" in D&C 1.  For instance, I published this in Sophic Box and Mantic Vista.

Quote

The leading verses describe how people have “strayed from mine ordinances and have broken mine everlasting covenant.” Verse 17 describes the calling of Joseph Smith in response, and verse 18 describes how God also gave commandments to unspecified “others.” Later, God explains that “I the Lord am willing to make these things known unto all flesh; for I am no respecter of persons.” (v 34-35). Truth and revelation here are important for LDS claims, but both are expressly non-exclusive.

Speaking of the LDS leaders against the notion of absolute and actual truth as static and unchanging, see verses 24-28:

These commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

And inasmuch as they erred, it might be made known;

And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

And inasmuch as they sinned, they might be chastened that they might repent;

And inasmuch as they were made humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

The truth the LDS possess is here explicitly imperfect and incomplete rather than absolute and final. 

And this, drawing on how the scriptures use "true" and/or "living" rather than Websters and popular culture.

Quote

My reading of verse 30, regarding the distinction of the church, suggests that the word “only” applies to the phrase “with which I, the Lord am well pleased.” (Consider a sentence about the “only blue and idling car upon the face of the whole parking lot, with which I, the attendant, am well pleased.” That is not just a florid and emphatic way to say “only blue car” but provides a very different thought.) The “well-pleased” designation in D&C 1 applies to the church and is relative to what “true and living” means as descriptive qualities for church. It happens that the Biblical occurrences of true and living cast light on the meaning: “true vine,” “true treasure,” “truth and life,” “tree of life,” “living bread,” “living waters,” “new and living way through the veil” (Hebrews 10:20); and “true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water” (Heb. 10:22). The Bible imagery of “true and living” has to do with the voice of warning (Jeremiah 10:10, and D&C 1:2), priesthood (true vine, John 15:1-5), living bread and living waters (sacrament and baptism, Holy Spirit inspiration, scripture; that is, ordinances and covenants and revelation), and finally, tree of life and “living way through the veil,” which both point to the temple and Christ’s role as the Melchizedek High Priest who enters the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement. ((See Margaret Barker, “The Great High Priest” BYU Studies 42/3&4 (2003): 64–84.)) The themes that go with Biblical “true and living” imagery parallel the themes of D&C 1 point for point, verse for verse. Collectively all of these Bible images based on “true and/or living” center on the ongoing revelation and the distinctive priesthood ordinances and covenants, scriptures and temple worship that do, in actual fact and practice, distinguish the LDS from other faiths. But the designation is expressly non-exclusive and incomplete relative to truth, revelation, and human virtue.  [emphasis added.]

And as to why so many in LDS culture think the way they do about an expression like "only true church" and "the church is true", I find the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth helpful.  Here are positions 1 and 2 of 9.

Quote

Position 1 – Basic Duality. (Garden of Eden Position: All will be well.)

The person perceives meaning divided into two realms—Good/Bad, Right/wrong, We/They, Success/Failure, etc. They believe that knowledge and goodness are quantitative, that there are absolute answers for every problem and authorities know them and will teach them to those who will work hard and memorize them.

Position 2 – Multiplicity Prelegitimate. (Resisting snake)

Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are true authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds. They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong. They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently. 

I made the case in Sophic Box and Mantic Vista that Joseph Smith by precept and example tries to lead us to Position 9, something that, if it happens at all, happens for individuals as a consequence of personal  "cognitive and ethical growth" rather than to communities by institutional fiat. 

For instance, this, on arriving at Position 6, from further in my essay:

Quote

If a person can move along through to Position 6: Commitment Foreseen, they come to this point:

"He starts to see how he must be embracing and transcending of: certainty/doubt, focus/breadth, idealism/realism, tolerance/contempt, stability/flexibility. He senses need for affirmation and incorporation of existential or logical polarities. He senses need to hold polarities in tension in the interest of Truth." ((Veda Hale, email to Kevin Christensen on the Perry Scheme, Position 6.))

This puts me in mind of 2 Nephi 2 on opposition in all things, the temple, and Joseph Smith’s comment that “by proving contraries, truth is made manifest,” remembering that “truth is knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come” (D&C 93:24).

"He begins to maintain meaning, coherence, and value while conscious of their partial, limited, and contradictable nature. He begins to understand [Page 173]symbol as symbols and acknowledges the time-place relativity of them. He begins to affirm and hold absolutes in symbols while still acknowledging them to be relativistic." ((Veda Hale. Position 6.))

This puts me in mind of Nephi’s comment that we cannot understand the Jewish prophets without knowing the cultural context (2 Nephi 25:1-5).

There is more here, going through to Position 9 of the Perry Scheme, with Joseph Smith taking the lead.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited July 28, 2021 by Kevin Christensen

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, Navidad said:

 These folks were already committed, baptized Christians. That was enough for us.

It's not enough for us. 

Notice your own exclusivity shown right there in differentiating baptized Christians from unbaptized.

What's the difference, seriously?

Could I be a baptized Baptist, and preach in a Baptist congregation believing what I believe and teach?

Could I preach my beliefs in your Mennonite congregation?

Seriously-?

Edited July 28, 2021 by mfbukowski

[bOObOO]

15 hours ago, Navidad said:

I agree it shouldn't be that way. But unfortunately for us it is. We don't want to "work with you in areas of common interest and belief, etc." We want to worship, fellowship, and enjoy supporting the sick and needy,  and minister to the unreached with you. That is a huge difference. There simply is no way to do that in LDS polity without joining. There is no way to join without submitting to rebaptism, which in your tradition is an acknowledgment that ours was somehow deficit. You have most likely never been outside of the LDS church looking in. With all due respect to all your wisdom and knowledge, you have no idea what it is like. But you are right, it shouldn't be that way! Thanks for your really great answers to my questions. They are very helpful. I need to get back to my list of what I am not supposed to talk about here!

Do you understand our point of view for why it would be difficult for us to minister to the unreached with you?  You say there simply is no way to do that in LDS polity without joining, so why do you think there is no way for you to do that without joining us?

I think that unless you join with us to become a member of the same church with us, you are a member of some other church. There would be some things we could do together to try to help other people, but we would be doing whatever we did together as members of 2 separate churches, as representatives of 2 separate churches, rather than as members of the same church.  And that is why I think that would be difficult for us.  We would rather you be part of our church than a member of some other church.  We could still work together to some extent, though. We would just have to bear in mind that you are a member of some other church and that you don't want to become a member of our church because of what that would require from you.

[MiserereNobis]

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Could I preach my beliefs in your Mennonite congregation?

Sometimes I wonder if you could preach your beliefs in your own sacrament meeting. 
 

“Today’s first talk is by Brother Mark and is about relativism and the lack of objective truth. He is also going to extol the virtues of humanism. Oh, and he’s asked us to set up the projector so you can watch a video clip of some Rorty guy…”

😛

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Sometimes I wonder if you could preach your beliefs in your own sacrament meeting. 
 

“Today’s first talk is by Brother Mark and is about relativism and the lack of objective truth. He is also going to extol the virtues of humanism. Oh, and he’s asked us to set up the projector so you can watch a video clip of some Rorty guy…”

😛

In effect, not using that language, I work it into every talk, which means probably at least 2 sundays a month.

They all know my philosophy background, etc.

I often speak about the difference between spiritual knowledge (testimony) and objective scientific knowledge.  OFTEN.

We have some scientists in the ward and we say the same things. 

I teach kids not to be taken in by "anti" material.

No, no videos, the kids don't need  it and seem to be smarter than many here.

Spirit is direct understanding, science is constructed by humans.

Both have their place, but never the Twain shall meet 

That's really all the Rorty stuff says.

"Science tells us how the heavens go, Scripture tells us how to go to heaven"- Galileo 

That was 400 years ago, and we still don't understand it.

"If we can't see God, He's not real"

No, it doesn't mean that at all

Edited July 28, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Sometimes I wonder if you could preach your beliefs in your own sacrament meeting. 
 

“Today’s first talk is by Brother Mark and is about relativism and the lack of objective truth. He is also going to extol the virtues of humanism. Oh, and he’s asked us to set up the projector so you can watch a video clip of some Rorty guy…”

😛

AND for what it's worth, I agree with this and about anything Kevin says.

Imo this article demolishes positivism and could help any religious believer.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

And No Rorty!!

And Kevin writes gooder than me.

 

Edited July 28, 2021 by mfbukowski

[bOObOO]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

AND for what it's worth, I agree with this and about anything Kevin says.

Imo this article demolishes positivism and could help any religious believer.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

And No Rorty!!

 

Perhaps someday Kevin will write a book to bridge the gap between philosophy as you understand it to our Church teachings as most faithful Church members understand them but without having your understanding of philosophy. 

I wonder what our Prophet would say about that.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, bOObOO said:

Perhaps someday Kevin will write a book to bridge the gap between philosophy as you understand it to our Church teachings as most faithful Church members understand them but without having your understanding of philosophy. 

I wonder what our Prophet would say about that.

Forget my understanding, his understanding or limiting Kevin or comparing anyone to anyone else unless you would like to be so compared yourself.

That might not go well for you.

Yours was a manipulative comment 

Under how many names do I have to ignore you, always looking for the improvement that never comes?

Edited July 28, 2021 by mfbukowski

[bOObOO]

21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Forget my understanding, his understanding or limiting Kevin or comparing anyone to anyone else unless you would like to be so compared yourself.

That might not go well for you.

Yours was a manipulative comment 

Under how many names do I have to ignore you, always looking for the improvement that never comes?

I believe you are aware of how some people have difficulty understanding philosophy as you do, but I think Kevin may understand it as well as you do and that he might be able to help others understand it.  Or maybe you could write a book like that, too.

There was no manipulation intended.  I just thought a book like that could be a good thing and that Kevin would probably be able to write one about that. Maybe you are offended because I didn't think to suggest you could write a book like that too.

I dunno.  You seem to be so easily offended by me.  I am really not a bad guy.

[mfbukowski]

21 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hi Bernard - I just might, but it is on my list of things not to talk about. Take care.

I just noticed this in your siggy after all this time!:

Quote

Interests:Very interested in the history of religion as conflict. PhD Candidate in Modern Mexican History. 

Interesting, in the present context of this discussion about conflicting religions.

[Calm]

Navidad, I hope this comes across as not too offensive, but thinking about your comment about how Latter-day Saints deny the effectiveness of your baptism (you used the term “deficit”)**** in that we require you to be rebaptized, perhaps you might consider that we view your insistence that your baptism is enough in much the same way.  You are to us denying our baptism has the level of effectiveness that we believe it has.  It is not identical comparison as if I understand you correctly, you would say our baptism is as effective as yours is, that it is not deficit, and therefore we don’t have to be rebaptized, which is a significant difference, but fundamentally both boil down to the position the other faith doesn’t understand or accept what a ‘real’ or better phrased “authorized” or recognized by God baptism is.

****I agree that your interpretation of the Latter-day Saint general attitude towards other faiths’ baptisms and your own personal baptism is correct, though my personal belief is such an expression of faith and commitment through baptism in other faiths can have a significant spiritual effect on the individual and the community, such a baptism is deeply meaningful and can be life changing, eternal life changing in my view, but it is not enough for salvation or to fulfill what I believe is the command to be baptized…and thus yes, I agree I see it a deficit in the long run for exaltation even if it may be what God wants for you at this time.

Edited July 29, 2021 by Calm

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Navidad, I hope this comes across as not too offensive, but thinking about your comment about how Latter-day Saints deny the effectiveness of your baptism (you used the term “deficit”)**** in that we require you to be rebaptized, perhaps you might consider that we view your insistence that your baptism is enough in much the same way.  You are to us denying our baptism has the level of effectiveness that we believe it has.  It is not identical comparison as if I understand you correctly, you would say our baptism is as effective as yours is, that it is not deficit, and therefore we don’t have to be rebaptized, which is a significant difference, but fundamentally both boil down to the position the other faith doesn’t understand or accept what a ‘real’ or better phrased “authorized” or recognized by God baptism is.

****I agree that your interpretation of the Latter-day Saint general attitude towards other faiths’ baptisms and your own personal baptism is correct, though my personal belief is such an expression of faith and commitment through baptism in other faiths can have a significant spiritual effect on the individual and the community, such a baptism is deeply meaningful and can be life changing, eternal life changing in my view, but it is not enough for salvation or to fulfill what I believe is the command to be baptized…and thus yes, I agree I see it a deficit in the long run for exaltation even if it may be what God wants for you at this time.

Many Christian sects accept the baptism of other sects when someone moves from one sect to another.  The LDS Church accepts none.  Most other sects don't accept an LDS baptism because they view the LDS doctrine of God outside of orthodoxy.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Many Christian sects accept the baptism of other sects when someone moves from one sect to another.  The LDS Church accepts none.  Most other sects don't accept an LDS baptism because they view the LDS doctrine of God outside of orthodoxy.

Are you adding this for info for those not aware of this or making a point I don’t understand and you might like me to respond to?

[Teancum]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you adding this for info for those not aware of this or making a point I don’t understand and you might like me to respond to?

Just for information.

[Navidad]

On 7/27/2021 at 8:34 PM, Rain said:

Is it possible that you are seeing a much bigger barrier there than there is? 

It's not like the only hurtful things said are to those who are not members.  One time a sister in our ward said a hurtful thing about me to the whole relief society class.  I remember my face flaming up and I was hurt and embarrassed. But 30 seconds later the Spirit was telling me, "she must not have a lot of good in her life to treat you that way."

So I started visiting her at home.  She was very lonely.  She was a widow whose kids didn't live close and didn't visit often. 

It was amazing to see the change in her.  She really looked forward to our visits.  She greeted me kindly at church.  It wasn't long before she passed away so I was so glad I got to know her better.

So there is a barrier between you and church members.  It is natural.  It happens all around us everywhere in any group we are in.  I see it in my own life in different groups.  But when I acknowledge that and realize it's ok and I start focusing on them instead of my self then that barrier isn't so important any more.  

Yours and your wife's feeling of hurt are valid.  No one should be saying those things because it is hurtful. They are in the wrong if they are mean or hurtful, but neither I, nor you, can change them any more than I could change the woman I talked about.  But focus on making them feel loved and welcome and maybe you will find that the barrier isn't near as big anymore even if they never change.

Great words of wisdom. Thanks especially for acknowledging that our feelings of hurt are valid. While valid, they are not inevitable and they certainly aren't strictly the fault only of the folks. We are looking for a relationship that simply is not possible to attain in the COJCOLDS. It is so hard for me to explain. For me personally, I think I understand the core issues. They are two things: 1. At times, I take a boatload of stuff from my non-LDS Christian friends for insisting and yes, even arguing that my LDS friends are fully and completely Christian - Godly folks whose commitment to the atonement I respect and trust. Wow, next my own Christianity is in debate with some of the more extreme of them; 2. Whether in this life or afterward, according to my LDS friends, the only hope for being fully and completely Christian (salvation. sanctification, and exaltation -living in the presence of God forever) is via an exclusively LDS path. I think you all think that if you offer complete salvation to everyone via a series of LDS ordinances, that somehow that is not exclusive in both senses of the word. 

I deeply believe that when we each stand beside each other in front of the Christ at the final judgment, He is not going to care about, or even know what denomination, or religious group we belonged to however-many years before back on earth. He is going to look at what faith we had, what light we both saw and exhibited. In the NT, Christ never said "You are this or that, therefore you are made whole" - Rather he said, "Your faith has made you whole." "Today you will be with me in paradise" Etc. I believe in a wideness in God's mercy.

I struggle with the narrowness of the LDS path to eternal life with Christ. I also can't just say "Well, I will work with the folks in the ward to put eyeglasses on poor children here in our part of Mexico." I want more than that in terms of worship and Christian fellowship, like I have felt in so many other places we have lived with members of other Christian groups. I guess it just is not possible. Tomorrow is a funeral of an elderly gentleman in the ward who often taught our Elders Quorum. I loved that man. One more time - I loved that man. He helped me and encouraged me to keep asking questions. He had old wounds from being shot in land disputes here. He was a giant of faith. I didn't just want to help him in his ministries of the last few years in reaching out to those in the very ejido who had shot him and killed his uncle. I loved that man. I think some of the folks here in the forum just don't understand that. Their advice is like if I were the pastor of the local Methodist church in the area who simply wants to join forces for flood relief. I am not him. I will never be him.

Thanks again for your words of wisdom.

[Navidad]

On 7/27/2021 at 8:35 PM, mfbukowski said:

But for you, suppose the person attending for years was Buddhist and did not want to become Christian. That is a clear analogy.

You regard all Christians as "members"

Sorry, I am not exactly sure what you are saying. I don't regard all members of Christian churches as "members." One has to have a testimony and witness to be a "member." That testimony however does not come by membership in any church, not the Mennonite or the LDS church. So I think I reject your premise, but I am not exactly sure what you are saying. When I was the English pastor of a Chinese church in LA, we certainly had folks who were of Asian faiths attend our church. That wasn't unusual at all. I certainly would have allowed them to participate, share a message, etc. This is just like our ward does with us. The one thing you are missing, I think in your comment is that I also would not have had a preconceived judgment about their eternal destiny because they were Buddhist, not a Baptist, or not a Southern Baptist. As I have said many times (as recently as three minutes ago) I believe in a Wideness in God's Mercy. I love the old song we sang all the time when I was a boy:

1 There's a wideness in God's mercy,
like the wideness of the sea;
there's a kindness in his justice
which is more than liberty.

2 There is no place where earth's sorrows
are more keenly felt than heaven:
there is no place where earth's failings
have such gracious judgement given.

3 There is plentiful redemption
through the blood that Christ has shed;
there is joy for all the members
in the sorrows of the head.

4 For the love of God is broader
than the measure of our mind;
and the heart of the eternal
is most wonderfully kind.

5 If our love were but more simple,
we should take him at his word;
and our lives would be illumined,
by the glory of the Lord.

The faithful members of the COJCOLDS provide two options (versions of the same one) for someone to be considered for eternal life and continued growth with Christ and Heavenly Father - accept the LDS faith in this life or the next. Is there another path I am missing? As the song says, my faith is built on the "gracious judgment" given to us at the judgment (bema - mercy) seat of I Cor 3.

[Rain]

44 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Great words of wisdom. Thanks especially for acknowledging that our feelings of hurt are valid. While valid, they are not inevitable and they certainly aren't strictly the fault only of the folks. We are looking for a relationship that simply is not possible to attain in the COJCOLDS. It is so hard for me to explain. For me personally, I think I understand the core issues. They are two things: 1. At times, I take a boatload of stuff from my non-LDS Christian friends for insisting and yes, even arguing that my LDS friends are fully and completely Christian - Godly folks whose commitment to the atonement I respect and trust. Wow, next my own Christianity is in debate with some of the more extreme of them; 2. Whether in this life or afterward, according to my LDS friends, the only hope for being fully and completely Christian (salvation. sanctification, and exaltation -living in the presence of God forever) is via an exclusively LDS path. I think you all think that if you offer complete salvation to everyone via a series of LDS ordinances, that somehow that is not exclusive in both senses of the word. 

I deeply believe that when we each stand beside each other in front of the Christ at the final judgment, He is not going to care about, or even know what denomination, or religious group we belonged to however-many years before back on earth. He is going to look at what faith we had, what light we both saw and exhibited. In the NT, Christ never said "You are this or that, therefore you are made whole" - Rather he said, "Your faith has made you whole." "Today you will be with me in paradise" Etc. I believe in a wideness in God's mercy.

I struggle with the narrowness of the LDS path to eternal life with Christ. I also can't just say "Well, I will work with the folks in the ward to put eyeglasses on poor children here in our part of Mexico." I want more than that in terms of worship and Christian fellowship, like I have felt in so many other places we have lived with members of other Christian groups. I guess it just is not possible. Tomorrow is a funeral of an elderly gentleman in the ward who often taught our Elders Quorum. I loved that man. One more time - I loved that man. He helped me and encouraged me to keep asking questions. He had old wounds from being shot in land disputes here. He was a giant of faith. I didn't just want to help him in his ministries of the last few years in reaching out to those in the very ejido who had shot him and killed his uncle. I loved that man. I think some of the folks here in the forum just don't understand that. Their advice is like if I were the pastor of the local Methodist church in the area who simply wants to join forces for flood relief. I am not him. I will never be him.

Thanks again for your words of wisdom.

I have a friend who deeply loves other people.  She does everything she can to help them.  But she has no faith.  She doesn't even believe in God.  

Do you feel you could have the closeness to people like her that you feel you can't have with those of the LDS faith?