What To Do When Your Friend Turns Anti-Mormon?

[GingerRed]

8 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

The missionaries go out to present the message of the LDS Church and invite people to know if it is true or not.  Missionaries do not spend much time attempting to disprove other religious beliefs, criticize leaders outside of our faith, and so forth.  We do not protest new non-LDS church buildings when they open up or do protests of really anything.  Also missionaries do not target any specific group.  They teach everyone that is willing to listen.  We are not directing any attack against any specific church or group.  There are no lectures in the Church like "What the Baptists really believe but will not tell you." 

Yes w inform the world that no other church has the power to seal marriages and families together forever.  What other churches make a claim they have this power?  They basically deny it is possible. 

Of course we tell people our church is the true church.  Building up the Church is not an attack against other churches.  I suppose using this logic Jesus attacked other religions by suggesting that people can only be saved through him.  Was his intention to attack other religions or just declare truth?  If a new fast food place says they have the best burgers in town, is this a direct attack on Burger King and Wendys or are they just telling people to try their burgers.  They might like them better than other places?

Well said! 

[Teancum]

23 hours ago, GingerRed said:

I really had to sit on my hands not to call her out and make a comment that she's been LDS long enough to KNOW what she's now saying is BS!!  She's telling lies that she KNOWS she telling lies! I am so appalled and flabbergasted! I did not see this coming.  I'm wondering who is feeding her this crap?  Her declaration post almost sounded scripted to me. Like someone put her up to it

What particular things is your friend saying that you think are lies and BS?

Edited January 10, 2022 by Teancum

[Navidad]

7 hours ago, kimpearson said:

A righteous light is inviting and comforting.  Those who come into that light see clearer.  A light that is harsh, dismissive and makes those in that light think they are the only ones with light is not what Christ was talking about.  Our church is not the exclusive holder of light.

Wow! That is powerful and radical! No single church is the exclusive or "preferred by Christ" keeper of light, right, or spiritual might! We are all pilgrims on a journey - wandering and wondering what eternity will hold. This quote from Peter Enns is certainly appropriate:

"In the spiritual life, the opposite of fear is not courage, but trust. Branch out. Not only do our beliefs define us, but so does the community of like-minded people who share those beliefs. Christian traditions, denominations, and congregations provide a group identity. We are social animals, so we should not judge our spiritual groups, or those of others, as necessarily a problem. Only when our communities become the defining element of our spiritual lives, packs that protect those boundaries at all costs, do problems begin. That leads to isolation, “us versus them” thinking, and the illusion that “we” are basically right about the Bible and God and “they” aren’t—the kind of wall-building that Jesus and Paul criticized. So much can be learned from”

I think many of us have made our respective spiritual communities "the defining element of our spiritual lives." It sure seems that way! Every time we identify the Catholic, LDS, Baptist, or Lutheran church as "the church" we do this. "The church" is much broader than any of us in our specific identity or beliefs. In our specific church identities we have become communities of "packs that protect our boundaries."

Edited January 10, 2022 by Navidad

[MacGyver]

11 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

w[e] inform the world that no other church has the power to seal marriages and families together forever.  What other churches make a claim they have this power?  They basically deny it is possible. 

We also inform the world that no other church has the authority to perform any saving ordinances, including baptism and the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost. 

11 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Of course we tell people our church is the true church.  Building up the Church is not an attack against other churches. 

When we say that our church is the only true church, it is an indirect attack on all other churches. If ours is the only true church, then all the other churches are not true. 

11 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

missionaries do not target any specific group.  They teach everyone that is willing to listen.  We are not directing any attack against any specific church or group.  There are no lectures in the Church like "What the Baptists really believe but will not tell you." 

This is very true. We don't target any specific group or church. But our message is an indirect attack on the truthfulness of all other groups and churches. Which is probably why many competing sects join together to target us. 

Edited January 10, 2022 by MacGyver

[GingerRed]

12 minutes ago, Teancum said:

What particular things is your fired saying that you think are lies and BS?

For example Jane was saying  we worship Joseph Smith and not Jesus...that we sing about Joseph more than Jesus (meaning our hymns)  and that the Bible is the only scripture, not any other form .  She was a faithful LDS for several years so she KNOWS those statements are bunk.  Now if she wants to say that's just her opinion only, fine. If she doesn't WANT to believe IN  those things, fine.  But she makes it sound like this IS our doctrine and that is what we teach, THAT'S what is BS!  And there are people on her post that will believe her about us.  She's is spreading misinformation and untruths. 

That's what's so frustrating is she KNOWS the truth so how can she suddenly say that?  Someone is feeding her this anti stuff and she's just believing it, just like that. I KNOW her and this is not her talking!  It's like she's a different person. 

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Apples and oranges.  We do declare our church to Christ’s church but we spend virtually no time one why other churches are wrong.  I don’t mind listening to people when they tell me about their beliefs.  It is like a friend telling me all the good things about their new car.  That is all good.  If my friend spends a lot of time why my car sucks, I don’t need that.  I know my car well enough good and bad.

18 My object in going to ^ainquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all ^awrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those ^bprofessors were all ^ccorrupt; that: “they ^ddraw near to me with their lips, but their ^ehearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the ^fcommandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the ^gpower thereof.”

20 He again forbade me to join with any of them;

[Olmec Donald]

14 minutes ago, GingerRed said:

Someone is feeding her this anti stuff and she's just believing it, just like that. I KNOW her and this is not her talking!  It's like she's a different person. 

She may believe she's doing what God wants her to do.  She may believe your souls are at stake and that she has a duty.  She may have a new-found sense of purpose.  She's not necessarily coming from a place of intentional hostility towards you guys, but rather may be mimicing the behavior she's seeing modelled by the leadership of her new religion.  

If she was not this kind of person before, then it may be a phase that she will out grow.  

 

[GingerRed]

32 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

.  She's not necessarily coming from a place of intentional hostility towards you guys, but rather may be mimicking the behavior she's seeing modelled by the leadership of her new religion.  

 

 

And they accuse the LDS CHURCH of "brainwashing" ... 

However....I will not be like her...I will not get in her face...I will not challenge her new faith by offending what she believes in...I will not try to bring her back into the Mormon faith. That's HER job, if she so chooses to do so in the future.   If and when we talk again...we will set boundaries and agree to not talk about either of our faiths. 

Edited January 10, 2022 by GingerRed

[Gillebre]

1 hour ago, GingerRed said:

For example Jane was saying  we worship Joseph Smith and not Jesus...that we sing about Joseph more than Jesus (meaning our hymns)  and that the Bible is the only scripture, not any other form .  She was a faithful LDS for several years so she KNOWS those statements are bunk.  Now if she wants to say that's just her opinion only, fine. If she doesn't WANT to believe IN  those things, fine.  But she makes it sound like this IS our doctrine and that is what we teach, THAT'S what is BS!  And there are people on her post that will believe her about us.  She's is spreading misinformation and untruths. 

That's what's so frustrating is she KNOWS the truth so how can she suddenly say that?  Someone is feeding her this anti stuff and she's just believing it, just like that. I KNOW her and this is not her talking!  It's like she's a different person. 

I think that this transition of your friend's faith will be a great learning experience for you and those in your sphere who know and love Jane. Boundaries between associates and friends are important, and your friend seems very caught up in many feelings and experiences right now, but as time rolls on she'll likely balance out and settle into her new beliefs. Loving Jane means finding a way to have compassion without casting final judgments and still finding meaningful ways to let your light shine, to serve and be there for her as circumstances allow.

What I've learned when friends leave the faith is this: life is a journey with so many ups and downs, and the Lord is very good at rescuing His lost sheep. This is a learning experience for Jane who perhaps was never fully converted to the Lord through His Church and the covenants available to us. We're all meant to learn to tell between sweet and bitter, light and dark, and in His way He will continue to look after her and will surely continue to teach and utilize you as you continue to humble yourself, trust Him, and treasure up His word. Much longsuffering will be required on your part, I think, because you're still a source of peace as you reflect the Lord's light to you. While we do need to establish boundaries out of love and mutual respect, we don't need to become combative or yield to a spirit of contention ("how dare she!!! I am so angry and frustrated!") which will only diffuse the light that remains.

As you encourage her to continue to become more Christlike, even outside the Church of Jesus Christ, the Spirit will whisper to her and lead her along. Heavenly Father knows what His children need, and perhaps she needs a season away, as the prodigal son did, to realize what was taken for granted. It may take years, but as you cultivate gentleness and stand firm in your faith, drinking deep from the scriptures and worshiping in the Temple as often as you can, I know the Spirit will not fail you as you seek to know what He would have you do. Make more time for the Lord every day so that the Holy Ghost can be with you more consistently. He will prompt you on what to pray for, what is truly expedient, and you'll grow closer to your Savior.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Gillebre

[Tacenda]

34 minutes ago, Gillebre said:

I think that this transition of your friend's faith will be a great learning experience for you and those in your sphere who know and love Jane. Boundaries between associates and friends are important, and your friend seems very caught up in many feelings and experiences right now, but as time rolls on she'll likely balance out and settle into her new beliefs. Loving Jane means finding a way to have compassion without casting final judgments and still finding meaningful ways to let your light shine, to serve and be there for her as circumstances allow.

What I've learned when friends leave the faith is this: life is a journey with so many ups and downs, and the Lord is very good at rescuing His lost sheep. This is a learning experience for Jane who perhaps was never fully converted to the Lord through His Church and the covenants available to us. We're all meant to learn to tell between sweet and bitter, light and dark, and in His way He will continue to look after her and will surely continue to teach and utilize you as you continue to humble yourself, trust Him, and treasure up His word. Much longsuffering will be required on your part, I think, because you're still a source of peace as you reflect the Lord's light to you. While we do need to establish boundaries out of love and mutual respect, we don't need to become combative or yield to a spirit of contention ("how dare she!!! I am so angry and frustrated!") which will only diffuse the light that remains.

As you encourage her to continue to become more Christlike, even outside the Church of Jesus Christ, the Spirit will whisper to her and lead her along. Heavenly Father knows what His children need, and perhaps she needs a season away, as the prodigal son did, to realize what was taken for granted. It may take years, but as you cultivate gentleness and stand firm in your faith, drinking deep from the scriptures and worshiping in the Temple as often as you can, I know the Spirit will not fail you as you seek to know what He would have you do. Make more time for the Lord every day so that the Holy Ghost can be with you more consistently. He will prompt you on what to pray for, what is truly expedient, and you'll grow closer to your Savior.

I agree with this and I feel like my faith crisis forced me to find my own faith, I relied on others' belief and didn't try to get a testimony of God/Christ...it was just a given with me. 

[GingerRed]

57 minutes ago, Gillebre said:

I think that this transition of your friend's faith will be a great learning experience for you and those in your sphere who know and love Jane. Boundaries between associates and friends are important, and your friend seems very caught up in many feelings and experiences right now, but as time rolls on she'll likely balance out and settle into her new beliefs. Loving Jane means finding a way to have compassion without casting final judgments and still finding meaningful ways to let your light shine, to serve and be there for her as circumstances allow.

What I've learned when friends leave the faith is this: life is a journey with so many ups and downs, and the Lord is very good at rescuing His lost sheep. This is a learning experience for Jane who perhaps was never fully converted to the Lord through His Church and the covenants available to us. We're all meant to learn to tell between sweet and bitter, light and dark, and in His way He will continue to look after her and will surely continue to teach and utilize you as you continue to humble yourself, trust Him, and treasure up His word. Much longsuffering will be required on your part, I think, because you're still a source of peace as you reflect the Lord's light to you. While we do need to establish boundaries out of love and mutual respect, we don't need to become combative or yield to a spirit of contention ("how dare she!!! I am so angry and frustrated!") which will only diffuse the light that remains.

As you encourage her to continue to become more Christlike, even outside the Church of Jesus Christ, the Spirit will whisper to her and lead her along. Heavenly Father knows what His children need, and perhaps she needs a season away, as the prodigal son did, to realize what was taken for granted. It may take years, but as you cultivate gentleness and stand firm in your faith, drinking deep from the scriptures and worshiping in the Temple as often as you can, I know the Spirit will not fail you as you seek to know what He would have you do. Make more time for the Lord every day so that the Holy Ghost can be with you more consistently. He will prompt you on what to pray for, what is truly expedient, and you'll grow closer to your Savior.

Awww Gillebre...always the voice of reason with your kind gentle soul....thank you ❤  you have always been one of my favorite posters! 

I wish to have heard from some of my other fav posters.... Scott Lloyd,  smac97....Kenngo1969 ? I wanted to hear thier input.  

 

[Navidad]

My wife and I are in our fifth year of attendance and faithful participation in "our" ward here in Mexico. We enjoy the fellowship - by and large the folks are wonderful to us. A few - not so much - but that would also be true in a Mennonite, Baptist, or Catholic church. We wish there was music that was a bit more inspirational and we miss regular and deeper study of the scriptures. We have enjoyed seeing and getting to know a people who are radically committed to their faith.

We ventured out by attending a house of worship of a different group. We are both confident we are better for it. We didn't have a faith crisis. Our faith is unchanged by our years of participation in every aspect of the ward except temple work. We attend everything else and even won the annual ward Valentine newly-wed game. That certainly irritated a few folks! On occasion the folks don't know what to do with us. On occasion we don't know what to do with them. By and large, we simply pray, worship, and fellowship together intermixed with some good-natured kidding about who is going to end up in which level of heaven! I believe I have shared with you all the story about the area seventy who attended our Ward last Christmas. He presided and sat right behind my wife as she gave the Christmas sacrament talk. After, he confided in our bishop that he thought she would be an excellent candidate for more involvement in the ward and stake!  That was a compliment. You see, when the heart, the faith, and the spiritual maturity are that by which we assess each other, there really isn't that much difference, is there? I have often wondered if he (the area seventy) would have heard her talk through different ears had he known she wasn't a member. I hope not.

Of course there is the ever-present uncomfortable times of distancing. We have to steel ourselves when some very painful things are said from the stand and in personal conversations. I am certain we have offended at times as well. Some of you on this forum know folks in our ward. It is my hope and prayer that the vast majority of them would affirm that having us in their ward has been a positive. We would certainly affirm that our participation in the ward has been positive. It took two years or so for us to get more or less comfortable with each other.

Conversion of one or the other is never mentioned any more. We believe that the vast majority of our ward friends will be in eternity with us forever. They now seem to believe . . . well they seem to believe that we will accept their work for us in our next lives (on the other side) so they are content with allowing us to be us in this mortal existence. We joke about the fact that we will each whisper in heaven so that the "others" don't know we are there.

I hope you all can appreciate our deep commitment to our own faith and our assurance that we will live together with many of you for eternity - worshiping, growing and learning together with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - with or without LDS  or any other kind of ordinances. That is our commitment and our faith. Our covenants are many and deep, both to the Lord and to each other. We are neither corrupt, nor are our hearts far from the Savior. We embrace the power of Godliness and thirst for more of it in our lives. Best wishes to all.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Navidad

[GingerRed]

Wow Navidad! 

Can you come speak at MY ward? 

[BlueDreams]

On 1/9/2022 at 8:23 AM, GingerRed said:

Hello all.....I haven't posted here in a long time...but I wanted feedback from you guys. Your opinions I have always held in high regard.

 

I live in Utah. 10 months ago, a good friend of mine I've know for several years, ( I'll just call her Jane for privacy) who used to be a faithful Latter Day Saint, left the LDS church to join the Centerpoint church.  Her many LDS friends, including myself, tried to be understanding, kind and remained her friends to show we still care whether she was Mormon or not. We noticed that Jane had gone out and got a nose ring and some tattoos. Umm....okay. Going a bit rogue, much?  Ok fine we can handle that, not big deal.

However...3 days ago she posted on her Facebook page her "announcement" to declare to all that she left our church, to become....a Christian! BECOME a Christian?? Since when was she NOT one? She went on to spout the usual anti Mormon propaganda we've all heard before.... we worship Joseph Smith over Jesus....heck we even sing about Joseph more than Jesus! The bible is the only true scripture...yadda yadda.  Excuse me???

GingerRed

As usual, I haven't read the thread, so my response may be a bit repetitive and I may have more to say when I've read it. Recently my brother also joined a different christian sect. For a hot minute there he became convinced that I was going to hell, and told me as much (along with being deceived, believing a fraud, etc). His take down was so classic it felt like I was living in a parody. He'd been given a lds to baptist conversion story and then later given the CES letter and apparently went through some of the LDS site with his girlfriend's father "proving" that the church was untrue by the bible. All while not talking to his actual LDS family who could have helped him. His faith before then was one more of birth and inconsistent experience and not one of deep conversion...so when he had spiritual experiences it had already been framed in the context of another religious interpretation that excluded LDS thought on the matter. And bam! The birth of a new conservative christian. 

I'm going to fast forward a little, but right now we currently having healthy good discussions on religion about once a month. We got there through several different avenues. 1.) My bro felt pretty uncomfortable telling me I'm going to hell, I stayed calm and pointed out Gal 3 about gifts of the spirit, I asked him what of these he saw in me. He said all of them, I left him with a question he couldn't answer (why was I showing all the gifts of the spirit but was going to hell?) 2.) I let him know I was frustrated but didn't expect him to fix my anger...I took time to process it for myself and prep myself so that we could talk religion. That included spiritual work, it still does as I get a little frustrated when I'm reading the bible or something that reminds me. 3.) We laid down ground work for safe dialogue. Since I'm significantly older than him and been in these dialogues more if only due to sheer age, I fed several of them to him that he happily aggreed to. These included

- we'd talk about the positives that we were learning within our respective faiths

- we'd work to not get defensive and attack (he gave me permission to call him out nicely if he was getting defensive and I gave him some guide points as to how to share you're beliefs without getting obnoxiously preachy) 

- we'd talk about non-religious things first in discussions to warm up to religious discussion. 

- I started by sharing why I believed what I believed AFTER I gave him the space to share what he believed and allowing myself only the ability to ask exploratory questions (that was the convo where he didn't have an answer to why I was presenting gifts of the spirit)....I find people are more receptive to you when they know you know where they're coming from even if you fundamentally disagree. 

-  He changed his opinion about me going to hell after a lesson at church about difference in smaller beliefs but a dominance on belief in jesus (that may still go a little back and forth, but he can believe what he likes, I know my standing before God. I was more sad by what that states about his view of others than  offended for myself)

- I worked through my anger and gut reaction to convince him otherwise and undo the mess. I also buffed up on several areas I've not studied much...including the CES letter (and responses to it...though that was short lived because its obvious tactics and presentration was fueling my anger for what I view as really stupid arguments and contextualizations), actually reading rough stone rolling, and currently digging into some work on really early christianity. This was at first to be sure I could answer him if the questions ever came up. It's had the solid bonus of building my faith in areas that I've had at best mild interest before and more inferred belief based on other things I have firmer beliefs about.

-  Lots of prayer and careful consideration and keeping myself with a more compassionate focus than a hurt or offended one. 

Quote

I really had to sit on my hands not to call her out and make a comment that she's been LDS long enough to KNOW what she's now saying is BS!!  She's telling lies that she KNOWS she telling lies! I am so appalled and flabbergasted! I did not see this coming.  I'm wondering who is feeding her this crap?  Her declaration post almost sounded scripted to me. Like someone put her up to it.

I did a group discussion on my messenger to my LDS friends who know her, to let them know about this sudden turn around and to join me me in keeping Jane in our prayers. One of the gals told me something Jane did to her that I knew nothing about til now. I hold an annual Christmas party at my house.  Jane kinda cornered my friend, who's faithful LDS, into a discussion of why she left our church and what was wrong with it! What? She did that to one of MY guests in MY home??  Fortunately my friend is a strong person and held her own against this little onslaught.   Anyway after a lengthy discussion we have decided not to include her in our gettogethers anymore as now she would make my LDS friends uncomfortable around her. 

This all makes me SOO sad! Right now, I want nothing more to do with her and she is not welcome at my home for the time being. She is going down a dark path, and I don't want those bad vibes in my house. I don't care about her being in another religion, more power to her if that's what makes her happy. BUT...to turn around and attack my faith that I hold dear...that's crossing the line! If you insult my faith you insult me.

Personally, due to my cultural context (east coaster) I'm a big believer in just talking to people frankly but kindly about what's bothering you. I wouldn't want to cut her off without at least explaining why you are wanting to. Then again it also depends on how close you are to this person and your ability to talk with them. But I still think it doesn't hurt to try. It will hurt to not. 

Also lies is a strong word. I find that people who leave often have a specific view or experience of the church that was often very black and white or underdeveloped (in the case of my brother) and since they are leaving these concerns become predominant in their mind. So when thinking about it, someone who hasn't worked through the problems in the faith often will paint and overfocus on the issues the most with little to no balance. From their experience, they're not lying. They're just not fully aware of how much of their experience and thoughts were by no means universal or fully accurate. Particularly if their experience is being validated by others who left, creating an echo chamber of hurt and distortion (and yes validation of their own experiences of hurt or struggle) 

Quote

I also want to know if anyone has any knowledge about this Centerpoint church and is they who Jane is getting this crazy misinformation from? Is this what they teach?

I went once eons ago. Full disclosure, my teen experiences in TX gave me a HUGE bias towards baptist/evangelical faiths, particularly of the more conservative bends. It was not fun to be mormon in this context. So I was going with a baptist peer of mine to help confront my bias. Due to that I was likely more sensitive to messages that I know are often used against LDS beliefs though they didn't directly mention our faith by name. I would assume it isn't much different from other christian faiths of that bend. As in when it does come up it's not done in the most flattering light and with exaggerative focus on some of our doctrines to the point that most of us would say that's not true. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

Edited January 10, 2022 by BlueDreams

[Stargazer]

18 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Um… that’s not what the prophet said: “he that supposeth that little children need baptism ”

So it’s specially calling out anyone that thinks little children should be baptized as hell-bound and bereft of faith hope and charity. 

OK, you're right. Thanks for bringing it to my attention; I guess I was soft-pedaling it:

Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell. (Moroni 8:14)

Does this mean that every person who believes that little children are going to hell/limbo/wherever if they don't get baptized are going to hell? I don't think so. But even if I'm wrong and they are going to hell, even in Spirit Prison they can repent. Most people who believed this evil doctrine were taught the doctrine by those whom they trusted to know what the gospel is, because an awful lot of them back in the day were illiterate and the scriptures were not available in their language in any case.

It is an extremely uncharitable thing to believe that if a baby dies shortly after birth that that baby cannot be saved and is going to a bad place. And how reasonable is it to have such a belief?

But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism! (Moroni 8:12)

To insist that little children will go to hell if they don't get baptized is to insist that God is a partial and changeable God, and respects persons. So much so that, even knowing in advance that the child will die without baptism, God sends that child to hell anyway (because the people that believed this evil doctrine also believed that there was no pre-existence and the baby is a brand-new soul). 

And let's not forget that it isn't just babies. It's every single person who was born and died upon the earth prior to John the Baptist. Billions going to hell because by oversight, or by intention, God sent them into mortality when they would have no chance whatsoever to hear the Gospel and accept it.

I guess you take exception to calling people out on believing the evil doctrine of infant baptism. Fine, go ahead.

 

[Olmec Donald]

14 hours ago, Navidad said:

I think this thread is the most important thread in the four plus years I have been on this forum. Some very important points are being made by all. It is my prayer that folks with different perspectives on the OP's question do not simply and easily talk past each other. There is a long and terribly sad history of bias, prejudice, negativity, and quite frankly ignorance between a sadly large number of LDS and non-LDS Christians. Most likely many on this forum have either had personal experience with this by either being a victim of the other or by having at some time or another participated in causing the other's pain.

Of course all of those involved are both motivated and justified by their understanding of the gospel of the same Savior. Doctrine is a powerful force. Dogma is even stronger. I have long been concerned about the direct path connecting Doctrine-Dogma-Duty-Danger or Destruction. In the name of the Savior we hurt, cause pain, belittle, mock, and "other" those who are not us. I believe when we do this we collectively make God cry. And we all do it. We create blind spots that enable us to deny, but we all do it.

Then the best of us have to acknowledge that we all, as humans see through a glass darkly. Not one of us has certainty about what lies beyond the veil, who will end up where, and what all the criteria are by which Christ, the shepherd, judge, jury, prosecutor, and defender will judge us. The most faithful, the brightest, and the best of those on each side must simply trust in our respective faith that we are approximating the Truth (large T) of the gospel of Jesus Christ via our respective truths (small t) of our own lived experiences, beliefs, understanding, and group. Most of us have our arguments down pat. The best of us are experienced in how to refute the other. In so doing we all become less than what Christ wants us to be. He is anxious for us to thirst and long for more of Him, not to denigrate, denounce, demean, or defeat the others who look through the same glass just as darkly, and love Him so and trust in the perfect balance of His justice and mercy.

This is a very important conversation. Please let's not simply talk past each other about this. I believe every one of us needs to acknowledge how important it is that we let go of all the negatives that we have been taught about those who love the Savior but are not us. Our needs to rank ourselves as higher and the other as lower, less rational, less in tune with the Spirit, less correct is not the essence of the gospel. Our collective gospel is not one of thumping or beating the chest; it is one of falling on our knees daily to seek to be more like the Christ we, through all our differences share.

Navidad, I've given (and continue to give) a lot of thought to your post.  Here is where I am in that process:

I think you have identified an area where we (LDS and non-LDS Christians and all others) have room for, and more importantly opportunity for, very worthwhile improvement.  And what you have described is a SHARED experience - the experience of living alongside and interacting with those who hold and cherish significantly different beliefs is itself COMMON GROUND.  

A strongly-held belief in specific truth/salvation/exaltation claims, combined with genuinely caring about what happens to others and/or genuinely desiring to do what God wants, often sets the stage for conflict where those specific beliefs are not mutual.  And given that people are generally very resilient in their resistance to changing paradigms based on argumentation alone, the prospects for directly shifting perceptions towards a more "live and let live" focus on commonly-held beliefs is imo a long shot.  A quasi-universal theological common ground is probably impossible at this stage in our existence, BUT quasi-universal experiences may not be - case in point being what you have thrown a spotlight on with your post

I'm going off on a tangent now, but will try to tie it back in in a minute:

To a large extent, I think we believe what we want to believe.  For instance, I can find within Mormonism justifications for either a narrow and restrictive interpretation of "who's gonna make it", or justifications for a rather inclusive view of "who's gonna make it".   I presume the same is true of other religions as well.  So I speculate that a belief system shift starts out as a shift within the individual, which shift results in the person looking at the world through a correspondingly modified lense, which in turn results in them perceiving and embracing teachings and interpretations which are in harmony with their new internal paradigm.  In other words, I speculate that the change in heart precedes the change in specific beliefs.

Now I'm going to try to tie back in:

I think that as a person becomes less judgmental personally, their belief system will re-align accordingly.  This does not start out as a shift in their religious judgments!  A person can become less inclined to hold grudges, less inclined to take offense, and less inclined to anger without any of that being a direct challenge to their belief system.  If change actually starts from within, and if the eventual result is a change in heart which leads to the person drawing a more inclusive circle, so be it.  And if not, so be it as well.  

For me personally, that means (among other things) resisting the urge to post the most zingery zinger that I possibly can.  Being of limited intelligence, on those rare occasions when I find that there's actually ammunition in my zinger-gun, the temptation to pull the trigger and see what happens is almost irresistible. 

Almost.  

Edited January 10, 2022 by Olmec Donald

[Mike Drop]

On 1/9/2022 at 10:23 AM, GingerRed said:

BECOME a Christian?? Since when was she NOT one?

Mormons don’t believe “Christians” are the “real Christians” because the gospel was removed from the earth shortly after the last apostle died some 2000 years ago. Growing up I was taught my Christian family members were following the teachings of satan. We Mormons still believe that to this day. Why else do we have a missionary program? Because to us, anything less than the celestial kingdom is a form of damnation. Yes, the  terrestrial and telestial kingdoms are kingdoms of damnation. 
 

 

“” Brother Taylor has just said that the religions of the day were hatched in hell. The eggs were laid in hell, hatched on its borders, and then kicked on to the earth.” Brigham Young.

””both Catholics and protestants are nothing less than the whore of Babylon whom the Lord announces by the mouth of John the revelator as having corrupted all the earth by their fornication and wickedness. Any person who shall be so corrupt as to receive the holy ordinances of the gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them unless they repent”” Orson Pratt

 

 

Edited January 10, 2022 by Mike Drop

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, GingerRed said:

Wow Navidad! 

Can you come speak at MY ward? 

I'll tell you what. Next time I speak in SLC, I will save a Sunday to go by and check out Centerpoint! I am curious to know more about them.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I guess you take exception to calling people out on believing the evil doctrine of infant baptism. Fine, go ahead.

 

Dude, I don’t care. I’m pointing out the double standard here that is all. It seems odd to me that Latter-day Saints would be troubled to see things like “You aren’t real Christians” while at the same time teaching things like what’s quoted in Moroni. Again each side thinks they are only saying what’s true. 
 

Further I will point out that those that believe in infant baptism don’t believe unbaptized children are going to hell. That is an uncharitable attribution by Moroni. And additionally he does not limit his condemnation to those that hold such a belief. His statement says that if you think little children need to be baptized you have no faith hope or charity. This is a very harsh statement. One of many harsh condemnations of other faiths found in Latter-day Saint scriptures.
 

And just to reiterate - That’s fine! But maybe grow a thicker sin when some of that gets reflected back at you (not talking to you specifically, but to the attitude expressed in the OP). 

[MrShorty]

24 minutes ago, Mike Drop said:

Growing up I was taught my Christian family members were following the teachings of satan. We Mormons still believe that to this day.

Perhaps it is more an expression of my own heterodoxicity (is that a word?) or, maybe like the OP I hate when other people tell me what I believe, but I am one Mormon who does not believe that other Christians are following the teachings of Satan. I recognize some of the "One True Church" rhetoric that shows up in our canonized and uncanonized historical documents, and it gets a bit messy and muddy trying to sort out truth from error, but I just want to be clear that I don't believe that lie.

[Stargazer]

17 hours ago, 3DOP said:

You are almost correct, Navidad. Instead, the Catholic Church has never taught this, ever. One Church Father, St. Augustine proposed the idea. With no disrespect to the otherwise reliable St. Augustine on this singular point of view, he hadn't the benefit of further development. He made an unnecessary presumption that the Catholic Church never accepted.

A surprising number of people believe that this is what the Catholic church taught. Did they make it all up? Or was it taught at one time and not fully expunged from the beliefs of the people?

The thing that gets me is this: why does the Catholic church baptize infants? If they don't need baptism, then why are they doing it? Regardless of whether St. Augustine's notion was accepted or not, it would seem to be nevertheless important to the culture, and getting infants baptized as soon as possible must have a reason. What is that reason?

The Luther church, which inherited pretty much all of its doctrine from the Catholic church, also held infant baptism to be extremely important. When I was doing research into my late wife's German genealogy, I noticed that one of her uncles' Protestant baptism was recorded as a "Nottaufe" or "Emergency Baptism". This distinguishment would be because the baby was in bad enough health that there was some fear he was going to die before his regular opportunity for baptism, and thus he might die without baptism. And so he was baptized by either a minister rushing to the home to do the job, or perhaps a non-clerical person did the deed according to some exceptional policy.

It certainly appears to me that under that theological belief, infants need baptism. Again, why? If they are not going to suffer without it, why? Clearly, somebody thought something dire was going to result if the baby didn't get sprinkled with holy water.

17 hours ago, 3DOP said:

The only "people" who ever "officially taught" that unbaptized infants go to a burning hell, lived in the New World of the Book of Mormon, (if they ever lived at all). 

Whether it was "officially" taught, or only "unofficially" taught, the fact remains that it was taught in the Catholic church. The verses addressing the question in Moroni 8 do not seem to care whether it was a Pope or a mere important theologian who taught it. 

On the Vatican's website we have this:

"It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis." [Emphasis added] See: THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED

So, it's not dogma, but is a possible theological hypothesis. Now, regardless of whether this teaching is now understood to be incorrect, and a better one substituted, at the time Moroni 8 was being penned (which I think would have been some time in the 400s AD) guess who was evolving and teaching this doctrine that babies were going to hell if they didn't manage to get baptized? That would be Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430 AD)! You're welcome to believe that the Book of Mormon is a fiction, that Moroni did not exist and thus the entirety of Moroni 8, which gets very explicit in condemning infant baptism, is a modern anti-Catholic screed. But it is internally consistent in a chronological sense with the doctrines espoused by Saint Augustine on the subject, at around the same nominal time.

I don't know how "official" the writings on the website of Catholicism.org are, but on this subject we find this:

"St. Augustine, in his “Epistle to Boniface” says, “For it is not written ‘Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents’ or by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,’ but of water and the Holy Spirit” (Rouet de Journel: Enchiridion Patristicum: 98). The originator of this “infant-salvation” heresy was an Irish monk named Morgan, known to posterity as Pelagius — one of St. Augustine’s greatest enemies. Augustine declared: ‘Let no one promise infants who have not been baptized a sort of middle place of happiness between damnation and Heaven, for this is what the Pelagian heresy promised them’ (The Soul and Its Origin, Patrologiae Latinae, Migne, 44:475)." See HERE.

...and this...

The "Ecumenical Council of Florence declared: “The souls of those who die in actual mortal sin, or only in Original Sin, immediately descend into Hell”

Now, are these "official" teachings, or "unofficial" ones? Since this Council of Florence is the seventeenth ecumenical council recognized by the Catholic Church, held between 1431 and 1449, I would tend to think that its conclusions represent doctrine, at least of a sort. So, it appears that Augustine's doctrine on the subject was accepted at least until the mid-1400s.

 

 

[Stargazer]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

And in case anyone wonders I have heard of LDS families who react in much the same way. I find it very sad and troubling where ever it occurs. 

Oh, gosh, yes. I've not personally run into any like this, fortunately, but I, too, have heard of them.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Olmec Donald said:

Navidad, I've given (and continue to give) a lot of thought to your post.  Here is where I am in that process:

I think you have identified an area where we (LDS and non-LDS Christians and all others) have room for, and more importantly opportunity for, very worthwhile improvement.  And what you have described is a SHARED experience - the experience of living alongside and interacting with those who hold and cherish significantly different beliefs is itself COMMON GROUND.  

A strongly-held belief in specific truth/salvation/exaltation claims, combined with genuinely caring about what happens to others and/or genuinely desiring to do what God wants, often sets the stage for conflict where those specific beliefs are not mutual.  And given that people are generally very resilient in their resistance to changing paradigms based on argumentation alone, the prospects for directly shifting perceptions towards a more "live and let live" focus on commonly-held beliefs is imo a long shot.  A quasi-universal theological common ground is probably impossible at this stage in our existence, BUT quasi-universal experiences may not be - case in point being what you have thrown a spotlight on with your post

I'm going off on a tangent now, but will try to tie it back in in a minute:

To a large extent, I think we believe what we want to believe.  For instance, I can find within Mormonism justifications for either a narrow and restrictive interpretation of "who's gonna make it", or justifications for a rather inclusive view of "who's gonna make it".   I presume the same is true of other religions as well.  So I speculate that a belief system shift starts out as a shift within the individual, which shift results in the person looking at the world through a correspondingly modified lense, which in turn results in them perceiving and embracing teachings and interpretations which are in harmony with their new internal paradigm.  In other words, I speculate that the change in heart precedes the change in specific beliefs.

Now I'm going to try to tie back in:

I think that as a person becomes less judgmental personally, their belief system will re-align accordingly.  This does not start out as a shift in their religious judgments!  A person can become less inclined to hold grudges, less inclined to take offense, and less inclined to anger without any of that being a direct challenge to their belief system.  If change actually starts from within, and if the eventual result is a change in heart which leads to the person drawing a more inclusive circle, so be it.  And if not, so be it as well.  

For me personally, that means (among other things) resisting the urge to post the most zingery zinger that I possibly can.  Being of limited intelligence, on those rare occasions when I find that there's actually ammunition in my zinger-gun, the temptation to pull the trigger and see what happens is almost irresistible. 

Almost.  

Thanks my Olmec friend! Every time I see your avatar I think of my studies of ancient Mesoamerican cultures. Most historians believe the Olmecs died out in the BCE era. It is good to know one is still with us! Your post was extremely well-written. I see many correlations to your thinking with how we generally grow and mature in life, especially in the areas such as bias and prejudice that may exhibit themselves in rankism, racism, and othering. Religious tribes are among the strongest identity structures. Thanks so much for honoring my posts with your own, much better-stated thoughts. I wish you all the best! Have you ever been back to your homelands in southern Yucatan and Tabasco? Ha!

[Navidad]

47 minutes ago, Mike Drop said:

Mormons don’t believe “Christians” are the “real Christians” because the gospel was removed from the earth shortly after the last apostle died some 2000 years ago. Growing up I was taught my Christian family members were following the teachings of satan. We Mormons still believe that to this day. Why else do we have a missionary program? Because to us, anything less than the celestial kingdom is a form of damnation. Yes, the  terrestrial and telestial kingdoms are kingdoms of damnation. 
 

 

“” Brother Taylor has just said that the religions of the day were hatched in hell. The eggs were laid in hell, hatched on its borders, and then kicked on to the earth.” Brigham Young.

””both Catholics and protestants are nothing less than the whore of Babylon whom the Lord announces by the mouth of John the revelator as having corrupted all the earth by their fornication and wickedness. Any person who shall be so corrupt as to receive the holy ordinances of the gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them unless they repent”” Orson Pratt

 

 

Wow, Orson Pratt and John Taylor sure had a way with words! Thanks for sharing these quotes. I never heard or read them before.

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Perhaps it is more an expression of my own heterodoxicity (is that a word?) or, maybe like the OP I hate when other people tell me what I believe, but I am one Mormon who does not believe that other Christians are following the teachings of Satan. I recognize some of the "One True Church" rhetoric that shows up in our canonized and uncanonized historical documents, and it gets a bit messy and muddy trying to sort out truth from error, but I just want to be clear that I don't believe that lie.

I'm with you, I was never taught those kinds of things about other Christians, and I certainly don't believe that those who follow Christ but don't belong to our church are counterfeit Christians in any way.