Hate the sin, love the sinner--why the disdain for the saying?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

They (those who complain are probably justified, but may be missing the beam in their own eye because their beam is part of their doctrine!

Yes, and so it will stay.

We actually believe we are God's truest church, and that God has personally affirmed that to each of us through the certainty of personal religious experience.

We need to do better loving those whose Doctrine differs from ours.

And so do they. 

How much error in Doctrine is acceptable, if one does not believe their own church is as true as the church down the block?  Why pick one over the other?  Why do you pick ours to attend when it causes you pain over the continuous joy I feel?

Sorry, I simply cannot understand your point, to attend a church so flawed as ours, and then want to change that church to be just like mine.

I love you and enjoy your wonderful insights!  But I just cannot understand this! Who wants a church that actually  believes it is the same as the one down the block ?  

Sorry, but sometimes tough love is called for.  Even Jesus shows us that!    😘

Edited January 24, 2022 by mfbukowski

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

Variations on the theme:  "Love the bigot, hate the bigotry"; "love the hypocrite, hate the hypocrisy"; "love the racist, hate the racism".  If any of these were applied to me, I don't think the order of the phrasing would change how it comes across.

I think Moroni perhaps phrased the concept better this way:

Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.

Of course, this is from the perspective of the individual with the flaw/imperfection.  Nevertheless, "Don't condemn, but rather learn" might at times be more palatable than "lover the sinner, hate the sin."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I hesitate to opine on this, but I also hesitate not to do so. I would like to offer another perspective on this issue.

I have long appreciated you sharing your perspective.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

What you all are describing in your conversation about loving and hating is a form of soft bigotry or a subtle bigotry that hurts and cuts the recipient of such "love" and such "hate." 

I question that.  I don't think there is bigotry is "hating" or having an aversion to sinful conduct, while simultaneously loving the person engaged in that conduct.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

It becomes real to me when my LDS friends crucify my own faith on the cross of their own onliness, certainty, doctrine, and exclusivity.

I'm pretty sure that is not there intent.  Christians go about declaring Jesus to be the sole source of salvation.  Could you explain how that sort of "onliness, certainty, doctrine, and exclusivity" is acceptable?

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Some of you counter the last word (exclusivity) by assuring me you are not exclusive, or no more exclusive than any other Christian, or with "of course we are exclusive - we are the only true church! - after all God told us that" Have you ever thought about a faith that teaches that Christ teaches (taught) that all other faiths are an "abomination?" Abomination! Abomination! Wow!

He didn't say that. From John W. Welch:

Quote

In the First Vision, Joseph Smith was plainly told that Christianity had fallen off the path most pleasing to God and that he should join none of its denominations. As he was told (and reports in his 1838/39 account), the main villain in this unfortunate ecclesiastical situation was the creeds. In response to his question “which of all the sects was right,” Joseph was instructed by the Lord “that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight” (Joseph Smith-History 1:18–19).

This important disclosure by the Lord to Joseph Smith raises several questions: Which creeds might Jesus have had in mind? How many creeds existed in 1820, and which of those creeds had been adopted by which of the various “sects”? What did those creeds say, and what was it about them that made them so odious? Were they each individually an abomination, or was the problem that all of them together created a single abomination, due to the confusions, divisions, and contentions that they caused? How did the creeds of 1820 relate to the earlier creeds of Christianity, such as the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Symbol of Chalcedon, or the so-called Athanasian Creed? Was there something categorically wrong with these creeds in general, or only with certain creeds in particular?

He goes on to summarize three things we learn from the various accounts of the First Vision:

Quote

First, the accounts of the First Vision consistently make it clear that the gospel had been preached originally in truth and purity but that the world had strayed from it.
...
Second, in particular, errors of doctrine had been introduced into the beliefs of the people.
...
Third, confusion, contention, and corruption had ensued in the lives of many who professed to be followers of Christ. This was the culminating and precipitating final blow. It is one thing for people to disagree using civility and kindness while pondering various inscrutable mysteries of divine truth. It is another thing for chaos and conflict to reign.
...
Significantly, the historical record confirms this three-stage picture quite readily and thoroughly. Although it would require several volumes to examine and explore all of the questions posed above, this paper proposes to outline in broad strokes these three stages of creedal apostasy as brought to light in the First Vision accounts. From this three-stage overview, one may see how the emergence and evolution of these numerous creeds can be used to gauge the ascendancy and extent of the great Apostasy. Whether the adoption of these formal creeds should be seen primarily as a cause or as a mere symptom of apostasy is hard to say, but looking back on this quite staggering historical development from our vantage point today leaves little doubt that the crisis of the creeds had gone far enough by 1820 that the Lord’s voice should be raised in disapproval and warning against it. 

Welch goes on to trace the development of "Pre-Creedal Statements," then "Early Christian Creeds," then "Protestant Creeds," which he summarizes this way:

Quote

Another prominent feature of these creeds is their polemic stance. As important as saying what one believed was also saying what one did not believe and how the tenets of one denomination differed from those of another group. The Baptist Confession of 1688, for example, which is the most generally accepted Baptist confession in England and in the southern states in America, says the following about Catholicism: “The Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the Church; . . . neither can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof, but is no other than Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God: whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.”

Sounds pretty polemical.

Quote

The Scotch Confession of Faith (1560), in Article 22, targets the “Papistical kirk [church],” or community of Catholics, as being false priests and criticizes specific practices and beliefs: “They have so adulterated both the one sacrament and the other with their own inventions, that no part of Christ’s action abides in the original purity: for oil, salt, spittle, and suchlike in baptism, are but men’s inventions. Adoration, veneration, bearing through streets and towns, and keeping of bread in boxes or buists {chests}, are profanation of Christ’s sacraments, and no use of the same.”

Yep.  Pretty divisive.

Quote

Other creeds go out of their way to deal bluntly with what they consider to be specific heretical doctrines from Christian history. The Latter-day Saint Articles of Faith offer a much more conciliatory tone, “let them worship how, where, or what they may” (Articles of Faith 1:11).

I think that's a fair point.

Quote

The combative nature of the Protestant creeds is also evident by their dates. Many of these confessions coincide with the dates of Henry VIII and his schism from Rome, the Thirty Years’ War in Europe (1618–48), the Cromwellian Revolution (1640–60), as well as the tumultuous times of the First and Second Awakenings in the mid-eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.

Perhaps it was most of all in reference to these bloody battles, divisive contentions, and coercive tactics that the creeds of Christianity merited the term abomination in the words of the 1838/39 account of the First Vision. That word, of course, is offensive and jarring to our friends of other faiths. And indeed, it was a very strong word in the vocabulary of Joseph Smith’s America. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the American Language defines abomination as “1. extreme hatred; detestation. 2. The object of detestation, . . . 3. Hence, defilement, pollution, in a physical sense, or evil doctrines and practices, which are moral defilements.” Nevertheless, an abomination in the biblical sense can include anything that takes a person away from God or His righteousness. Obviously, the Bible uses the word abomination in connection with a wide range of sin or transgression, including idolatry (Deuteronomy 27:15), male homosexual conduct (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13), human sacrifice (Deuteronomy 12:31), eating ritually unclean animals (Leviticus 11:10–12; Deuteronomy 14:3–8), witchcraft and divination (Deuteronomy 18:9–14), and dishonest business dealings (Deuteronomy 25:13–16). Proverbs 6:17–19 gives a list of seven things that are an abomination unto God: “a proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, an heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, a false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.” Thus, seeing the creeds as an abomination may readily be conflated with the problems that they had caused, as identified in the First Vision accounts, namely, turning people aside from the gospel, teaching incorrect doctrines of men, professing errors and corruptions, and inciting tumult.

Thoughts? 

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

There are many ways to say this that I have heard:

"When you ask questions in Elder's Quorum the spirit leaves the room!"

Wow.  That is unkind and unjust.  I am sorry you have experienced this.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

"I liked your prayer, but I wish they wouldn't let non-members pray!"

"I know the church let's you take the sacrament, but when you do so you are simply pretending!"

"We don't believe in hell, but unless you accept our ordinances and thus our brand of faith - you will spend eternity in a world absent the Father and the Son! Oh don't worry, it will be more wonderful than you could possibly imagine!"

"Whenever a non-LDS priest presides over an ordinance, he commits blasphemy!" Since someone brought up ex-President Kimball

"Oh, you know how evangelicals are, they do or say this or that" - said by those who refuse to learn how to differentiate between non-LDS Christians, probably because all of them are an "abomination - ministers of Lucifer!"

"Our missionaries come to 'teach' you because they love you!" Sound familiar?

"Don't blame me, I am just telling you what Christ Himself told Joseph Smith in the First Vision!" In other words, this is our doctrine . . . what else can I say or believe?"

Then of course while saying all these things, my LDS friends also bitterly complain how unkind, mean, and bigoted are those in the non-LDS community who state that LDS Christians are not really Christians. They (those who complain are probably justified, but may be missing the beam in their own eye because their beam is part of their doctrine!

Hate the sin and love the sinner! Or, love the sinner and hate the sin! There are many ways to say this.

They all hurt!

Well said.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

9 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Growing up a Latter-day Saint in the Bible Belt, I was often treated similarly. It lacked respect and reverence for sincerely-held beliefs important to me.

 

You can certainly feel the insincerity and lack of actual love from that statement when it is directed at you personally.  The hate comes across much stronger than the love.

[kimpearson]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I hesitate to opine on this, but I also hesitate not to do so. I would like to offer another perspective on this issue.

What you all are describing in your conversation about loving and hating is a form of soft bigotry or a subtle bigotry that hurts and cuts the recipient of such "love" and such "hate." 

It becomes real to me when my LDS friends crucify my own faith on the cross of their own onliness, certainty, doctrine, and exclusivity. Some of you counter the last word (exclusivity) by assuring me you are not exclusive, or no more exclusive than any other Christian, or with "of course we are exclusive - we are the only true church! - after all God told us that" Have you ever thought about a faith that teaches that Christ teaches (taught) that all other faiths are an "abomination?" Abomination! Abomination! Wow! There are many ways to say this that I have heard:

"When you ask questions in Elder's Quorum the spirit leaves the room!"

"I liked your prayer, but I wish they wouldn't let non-members pray!"

"I know the church let's you take the sacrament, but when you do so you are simply pretending!"

"We don't believe in hell, but unless you accept our ordinances and thus our brand of faith - you will spend eternity in a world absent the Father and the Son! Oh don't worry, it will be more wonderful than you could possibly imagine!"

"Whenever a non-LDS priest presides over an ordinance, he commits blasphemy!" Since someone brought up ex-President Kimball

"Oh, you know how evangelicals are, they do or say this or that" - said by those who refuse to learn how to differentiate between non-LDS Christians, probably because all of them are an "abomination - ministers of Lucifer!"

"Our missionaries come to 'teach' you because they love you!" Sound familiar?

"Don't blame me, I am just telling you what Christ Himself told Joseph Smith in the First Vision!" In other words, this is our doctrine . . . what else can I say or believe?"

Then of course while saying all these things, my LDS friends also bitterly complain how unkind, mean, and bigoted are those in the non-LDS community who state that LDS Christians are not really Christians. They (those who complain are probably justified, but may be missing the beam in their own eye because their beam is part of their doctrine!

Hate the sin and love the sinner! Or, love the sinner and hate the sin! There are many ways to say this.

They all hurt!

 

 

Well said but unfortunately all too many members of the LDS Church feel justified in feeling those things you mentioned and often saying them out loud.  Some realized how hurtful these saying are to the ear and refrain from saying them around non-members but get them in a church classroom and out they will come.  When I hear it I wonder if members understand their own religion.  None of those sayings convey love, the first great commandment (whether it be God or your Neighbor).  Our doctrine teaches that all of God's children will have the chance to know Him and His son Jesus Christ and accept covenants with the Godhead whether in this life or the next.  There is never any reason to demean or tear down the belief of others.  Past Church leaders including Joseph Smith have at times used hateful language.  Many were bigots on race.  Many viewed others unjustly as churches of the devil.  These leaders were just men with many flaws that also did much good and at times were inspired.  It is very dangerous to hold any of them up as perfect in everything they taught or said in a talk.   These sayings bring contention and the Book of Mormon testifies that Jesus Christ Himself strongly warned against contention.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Olmec Donald said:

Variations on the theme:  "Love the bigot, hate the bigotry"; "love the hypocrite, hate the hypocrisy"; "love the racist, hate the racism".  If any of these were applied to me, I don't think the order of the phrasing would change how it comes across.

Fair enough. Though, within the context of Christianity (where the aphorism is employed), I think there's a distinction between saying someone is a "sinner" as opposed to saying someone is a "bigot" or a "racist."

Within the paradigm of Christianity, there is an underlying assumption that everybody is a sinner (e.g., Romans 3:23). So calling someone a sinner isn't an accusation of some specific failing so much as an acknowledgement of an assumed state of being.

And that default state of being is something that is shared among all people, including the person uttering the phrase - which, unless I'm mistaken, would likely not be the understood backdrop when referring to someone as a "bigot" or a "racist."

 

 

[california boy]

18 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Fair enough. Though, within the context of Christianity (where the aphorism is employed), I think there's a distinction between saying someone is a "sinner" as opposed to saying someone is a "bigot" or a "racist."

Within the paradigm of Christianity, there is an underlying assumption that everybody is a sinner (e.g., Romans 3:23). So calling someone a sinner isn't an accusation of some specific failing so much as an acknowledgement of an assumed state of being.

And that default state of being is something that is shared among all people, including the person uttering the phrase - which, unless I'm mistaken, would likely not be the understood backdrop when referring to someone as a "bigot" or a "racist."

 

 

People who say hate the sin love the sinner are never referring to themselves.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

You seem to be implying that the only way to discuss and warn is through "love the sinner, hate the sin", but my point is that there are ways to discuss things and talk about sin without using that specific formula or saying.

Also, this idea that if the prophet of God does it over the pulpit then that means we should be doing it to everyone we talk to doesn't make sense to me.  The prophet has a mandate to the world, just as he has authority to declare and warn the world.  We don't have the same mandate or authority.  

Though I don’t buy in to the disparagement of that aphorism, my posting without commentary of President Kimball’s observation was meant only as a submission for consideration. 
 

But I’d point out that the quote does not refer exclusively to prophets of God, but seems to refer generically to “speakers and writers” who would provide “motivation to righteousness,” notwithstanding their personal imperfections. 
 

I repeat that there is considerable wisdom in that concise sentence. I think we would do ourselves a great disservice as a people if we began to hamstring bishops and other local leaders who have stewardship over us by telling them they may not feel free to admonish us to righteousness “when moved upon by the Holy Ghost.”

Edited January 24, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[SeekingUnderstanding]

27 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Within the paradigm of Christianity, there is an underlying assumption that everybody is a sinner

Then what is the point of the saying at all? Why mention sin at all. Everyone is sinning. No need to mention it. No need to judge others because they sin differently. Why not just love them? Again if you are saying everyone sins, then the saying is meaningless. What you fail to recognize is that implicit in the saying is that whenever it is used the speaker is judging someone else to be sinning worse than themselves. 

[Olmec Donald]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Fair enough. Though, within the context of Christianity (where the aphorism is employed), I think there's a distinction between saying someone is a "sinner" as opposed to saying someone is a "bigot" or a "racist."

Within the paradigm of Christianity, there is an underlying assumption that everybody is a sinner (e.g., Romans 3:23). So calling someone a sinner isn't an accusation of some specific failing so much as an acknowledgement of an assumed state of being.

And that default state of being is something that is shared among all people, including the person uttering the phrase - which, unless I'm mistaken, would likely not be the understood backdrop when referring to someone as a "bigot" or a "racist."

I understand the distinction you're making.  I don't think it's a fundamental difference, but understand if you disagree. 

Imo there is justification within Mormonism for drawing a bigger and more inclusive circle.  "My heart is large enough for all men" - Joseph Smith.  You can't get much bigger than that.

Imo "seek and ye shall find" is not just a suggestion; it's the way things work.  If we look for justification for being judgmental, we will find it.  And if we look for justification for being non-judgmental, we will find it.  So our beliefs are largely a reflection of where our heart is.  

By the way, love your avatar!

Edited January 24, 2022 by Olmec Donald

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

People who say hate the sin love the sinner are never referring to themselves.

What an ignorant, arrogant, presumptuous comment. 

[James 1 5]

On 1/23/2022 at 10:12 AM, Stormin' Mormon said:

In just about any discussion on traditional Christian sexual ethics, the Christian believer will frame their argument, in one way or another, around the common phrase: hate the sin, love the sinner.  And then the statement will often be lambasted, mocked, or disdained.  For example, in a recently closed thread, one poster replied to a paraphrase of the concept by saying:

Every day of my life, I apply the "hate the sin/love the sinner" framework to myself and my actions.  I hate my sins.  They hold me back and keep me from experiencing the fullness of the Spirit.  I hate my temper. I hate my indifference. I hate my pride.  I try to do better, and even though I hate my sins, I still love myself.  I allow myself mercy and grace.  I allow myself the room to grow and develop and to make mistakes (sometimes over and over and over again) in my learning process.

If the Master has called me to love my neighbor as myself, why would I not allow others the same latitude that I allow myself?  Why would I not want my neighbor to also fulfill the fullness of his potential?  Why would I not want my neighbor to experience the fullness of the love and mercy and grace of the savior?  In my mind, hating the sin and loving the sinner is a desire for others to experience the same blessings of the Atonement of Christ that I have, the same joy, the same supernal blessings.  I don't get why a believer should be shamed for such a desire.   

So, for discussion, I have the following questions:

1a. Why does the "hate the sin/love the sinner" framework elicit such disdain?

1b. Is the disdain for the concept itself, or for how it has been operationalized by certain over-zealous and under-wise practitioners?

2a. Is there an alternative for the "hate the sin/love the sinner" framework for a Christian who is genuinely trying to both proclaim repentance and love his neighbor?

2b. Would the recommended alternative apply to all sins, or just to sexual sins that are no longer stigmatized by society at large?

 

1a. I think more people dislike the idea of loving a sinner than the idea of having a hatred of sin.  Hating sin is something most Christians know they should do because a Christian knows any sin is something that is not good.  Therefore, when someone sins it isn't easy for a Christian to love that "sinner" unless that person is seeking forgiveness for his past sins and doesn't want to sin anymore.  The idea of loving a person, any person, is much easier for a Christian to stomach than the idea of loving a sinner.

1b. Both, I think.  

2a. Yes, an alternative that I think would be better would be to not call a neighbor a sinner.  Instead of saying "Love all sinners" we could say "Love your neighbors, even if some have sinned in their past.  Especially if your neighbors don't want to sin anymore.  And when people have some trouble loving their neighbors who are actively sinning, we should try to understand why while being compassionate with everybody.

2b. I hate all sins, sexual or not.  And I try to love everybody, even when people actively sin against me personally.

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes, and so it will stay.

We actually believe we are God's truest church, and that God has personally affirmed that to each of us through the certainty of personal religious experience.

We need to do better loving those whose Doctrine differs from ours.

And so do they. 

How much error in Doctrine is acceptable, if one does not believe their own church is as true as the church down the block?  Why pick one over the other?  Why do you pick ours to attend when it causes you pain over the continuous joy I feel?

Sorry, I simply cannot understand your point, to attend a church so flawed as ours, and then want to change that church to be just like mine.

I love you and enjoy your wonderful insights!  But I just cannot understand this! Who wants a church that actually  believes it is the same as the one down the block ?  

Sorry, but sometimes tough love is called for.  Even Jesus shows us that!    😘

Hi Mark - Great post. But you made a slight twist in the church doctrine, did you not? You said "We actually believe we are God's truest Church . . . "

If that is what the church teaches, I would simply keep quiet (I know - that is not possible). Every church in the world might believe it is the truest or the bestest of all . . . . but that is not what the LDS church teaches about itself, is it? I appreciate you amending it as you did. That would eliminate the onlyism and would enable you to join the great community of other bestest groups within Christianity. Then becoming a member of the LDS church would be a migration, not a conversion. I would be all for that.

Why do we attend the ward? First and foremost we enjoy the fellowship. By and large the folks are wonderful to us. Second, it is the only English speaking church community within three hours of our home. My wife does not understand enough Spanish to comfortably chat with people, enjoy a sermon or song, or pray in the language. Therefore we started going to the closest English-speaking church - the LDS ward. Also by that time I was a rabid LDS church history nut. I was already speaking at MHA conferences before we started attending the ward. We quit 8 times, just as I quit this forum 5 times! We always went back. Now I have no more quit in me for either group. I should also add that the folks have found ways to allow us to minister in a variety of ways. That has been nice.

If we had a Mennonite church near us that had an English service, we would go there. We don't. So, we don't. If we attended an Mennonite church, at least 20% of the congregation would think we aren't Mennonite enough (culturally speaking). I would guess less of a percentage of the ward don't like us attending, so we are probably even in that regard. Methinks our ward might be a bit different than many for a variety of reasons. My historical knowledge tells me that since 1885 when the first Saints came here to live, they have been a bit different than many other groups within the church. Once, I gave a talk at MHA. A lady came up to me afterwards and said "You can't be from the colonies, you don't have the colony accent!" So maybe they even talk differently! Ha!

I only know four Mormon communities: our ward and stake, MHA, the church history department, and this forum. Each of the four have a lot of diversity. I like that. Probably this forum has the most diversity, MHA second, then the church history department, and finally our ward. At this point I can say I enjoy them all, because at times as you yourself have advised me, I just say "Well, they are wrong! I will see them in heaven" and I go on my way. Thanks and take care.

Edited January 24, 2022 by Navidad

[James 1 5]

22 hours ago, kimpearson said:

To use the words hate and love in the same phrase is impossible to achieve.   In my experience I have never seen someone who hated the sin not allow that hate  to spill over to the individual.  It is impossible for any of us to truly understand another's life well enough to start tossing around words like hate.  Unrighteous judgment in my mind is any time we determine someone is committing a sin when we don't know the full story.  Only a member of the Godhead understands the full story.  Our church believes that in certain situations, God will guide a priesthood authority in judgement but other than that none of us have the right to determine when another is committing a sin.  We only have that right to judge ourselves and even then I think we often fail to understand why we did something and we hate that action when such actions are actually an indication of a deeper problem we need to deal with.

Hate is one of those words and feelings I feel the Savior in the Sermon on the Mount counseled us to avoid.  Do you see God hating anything?  I see Him being angry or disappointed but even then He is quick to forgive.  When someone hates, that feeling is so deeply embedded that it is very hard to remove from your soul.

To hate something is to want to get rid of it.  To abhor it and be disgusted with it.  To not condone it or approve of it, not even a little bit.  From the Book of Mormon: those sanctified cannot look upon sin save with abhorrence, Alma 13:12.

I do see how people and the actions of people are closely connected, but I also see how there is a distinction between a person and what a person does.  And I can love a person while hating something that person has done.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have long appreciated you sharing your perspective.

I question that.  I don't think there is bigotry is "hating" or having an aversion to sinful conduct, while simultaneously loving the person engaged in that conduct.

I'm pretty sure that is not there intent.  Christians go about declaring Jesus to be the sole source of salvation.  Could you explain how that sort of "onliness, certainty, doctrine, and exclusivity" is acceptable?

He didn't say that. From John W. Welch:

He goes on to summarize three things we learn from the various accounts of the First Vision:

Welch goes on to trace the development of "Pre-Creedal Statements," then "Early Christian Creeds," then "Protestant Creeds," which he summarizes this way:

Sounds pretty polemical.

Yep.  Pretty divisive.

I think that's a fair point.

Thoughts? 

Wow.  That is unkind and unjust.  I am sorry you have experienced this.

Well sa

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks my friend. And I appreciate what your great grandfather did for the saints here in Mexico. I just read about him again last night. He was a pillar of this community. I think he was used a bit by the church leadership during the second manifesto business here, but that is strictly my opinion. Methinks they put him in a difficult position many times. I have met your dad, heard him speak,  and even went to Temple Hill with him. He might not agree with me on that. It would be a fun chat some day. You all, or someone needs to fix Alexander's gravestone. I see it a lot and every time I think it needs corrected!

I don't believe any certainty, or onlyness is acceptable. I think Jesus is the ultimate decider of our salvation, but only because He will be the final judge of that. I don't believe, as in another conversation He has set up any "laws" about how he will judge, just that His seat will be a mercy seat. He, unlike me will balance perfect mercy and righteousness in that task. I don't believe any church membership will be one of the boxes that Christ will check off at the judgment. I believe His judgment will be a matter of light, knowledge, and the fruits of the Spirit. Was the Holy Spirit active in China in 1000 BCE? Absolutely! Do I understand how? Nope! Will there be folks from 1000 BCE who are ushered into the presence of the Father? Yep! I believe that. All of them? Nope! All members of the LDS church? Nope. All Mennonites? Nope. All Catholics? Nope. All animists in Africa? Nope.

Last, I have never been a creedalist. The vast majority of my Evangelical acquaintances and friends are not either. Thanks for your response and kindness.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

I think there's a distinction between saying someone is a "sinner" as opposed to saying someone is a "bigot" or a "racist."

Hi! I agree with you, but I think the distinction is incorrect. I am convinced (certain, hah!) that bigotry and racism are sins, brought about by a common deficit and need in our shared humanity. I don't know if I would call it "original sin," but I think it is an innate part of our soul (mind, will, and emotion) and is the primary reason why until folks repent of it and turn away from it, bigotry, racism, rankism, onlyism, generalizing, normalizing, and all other expressions of sin will continue on ad nauseum. Oh, and being a Christian is preventive medicine, not a cure. As Christians, we don't lose our humanity, together with all its challenges. Take care.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think we would do ourselves a great disservice as a people if we began to hamstring bishops and other local leaders who have stewardship over us by telling them they may not feel free to admonish us to righteousness “when moved upon by the Holy Ghost.”

I agree.  I don't know that any members on this thread who are doing that.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Thanks my friend. And I appreciate what your great grandfather did for the saints here in Mexico. I just read about him again last night. He was a pillar of this community. I think he was used a bit by the church leadership during the second manifesto business here, but that is strictly my opinion.

Perhaps so, but the times were difficult.  Nobody's perfect (including good ol' A.F.).

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Methinks they put him in a difficult position many times. I have met your dad, heard him speak,  and even went to Temple Hill with him. He might not agree with me on that. It would be a fun chat some day. You all, or someone needs to fix Alexander's gravestone. I see it a lot and every time I think it needs corrected!

What's wrong with it?  

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I don't believe any certainty, or onlyness is acceptable.

What is your take on John 14:6?  "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

This seems to very quickly go into questions of authority, a topic about which Christians of every stripe have worked to understand for the last two thousand years.  But it seems like belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Savior of the world is the first order of "certainty" and "onlyness."  From there we run into questions about priesthood offices, priesthood authority, and so on.  

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I think Jesus is the ultimate decider of our salvation, but only because He will be the final judge of that.

I certainly respect that (and I believe it as well).  But how is that not a form of "certainty" and "onlyness"?

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I don't believe, as in another conversation He has set up any "laws" about how he will judge, just that His seat will be a mercy seat. He, unlike me will balance perfect mercy and righteousness in that task.

I agree with this.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I don't believe any church membership will be one of the boxes that Christ will check off at the judgment.

Jesus spoke of "my church" (Matthew 16:18).  "And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved."  (Acts 2:47.)  Paul later declared that "Christ is the head of the church" (Eph. 5:23) and "the head of the body, the church" (Col. 1:18).  He analogized the members of the church to "being many, are one body in Christ" (Romans 12:5), and said that "{f}or by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body" (1 Cor. 12:13). Paul also said that to this "one body" Christ gave "some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers, For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ."  (Eph. 4:4, 11-12.)  

I think the Latter-day Saints are justified in reading the New Testament and finding within it descriptions of a visible, hierarchical organization.  A church.  The Lord's church.  With leaders and authority.  With ordinances and structure.  

I very much respect that you do not subscribe to these conclusions.  For me, though, two verses come to mind.  The first is Matthew 7:21 - "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."  For me, joining the body of Christ through ordinances administered by those in authority is part of doing the Lord's will.  But joining the Lord's church, while necessary, is clearly not sufficient.  Consider the parable of the Ten Virgins, in which the Latter-day Saints believe that "the virgins represent members of the Church." See also here:

Quote

Spencer W. Kimball gave an LDS perspective on the difference between the wise and the foolish virgins, and why they could not share the oil: "This was not selfishness or unkindness. The kind of oil that is needed to illuminate the way and light up the darkness is not shareable. How can one share obedience to the principle of tithing; a mind at peace from righteous living; an accumulation of knowledge? How can one share faith or testimony? How can one share attitudes or chastity.... Each must obtain that kind of oil for himself."

There are plenty of Latter-day Saints who will not be allowed into the wedding, and plenty of (presently) non-Latter-day Saints who will.  

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I believe His judgment will be a matter of light, knowledge, and the fruits of the Spirit.

I quite agree.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Was the Holy Spirit active in China in 1000 BCE? Absolutely! Do I understand how? Nope! Will there be folks from 1000 BCE who are ushered into the presence of the Father? Yep! I believe that. All of them? Nope! All members of the LDS church? Nope. All Mennonites? Nope. All Catholics? Nope. All animists in Africa? Nope.

Same here.  I think the Lord will sort out such things, which sorting out will take place over time now and into the Millennium.  

There is no arbitrariness in the Lord's plan.  It is, or will be, available to all of us.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Last, I have never been a creedalist. The vast majority of my Evangelical acquaintances and friends are not either. Thanks for your response and kindness.

Sounds good.  The reference to creeds as "abominations" in Joseph Smith-History should be considered in context, I think.  I do not think it was ever intended to be an indictment of the faith of the billions of good and decent Christians throughout history.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 24, 2022 by smac97

[let’s roll]

I don’t use the phrase.  We’re invited to love all our brothers and sisters and since we all sin, we and everyone we love will have sins, so why the need to reference sin when expressing love.  

My experience has been the phrase is most often used when referring to people the person using the phrase believes has unique or grievous sin, so understandably the phrase has acquired a fair amount of baggage over the years.

[Olmec Donald]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What is your take on John 14:6?  "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

This seems to very quickly go into questions of authority...

Actually this seems to go directly to Jesus, without any intermediary authority.   If we desire to come unto the Father, who or what is "the way"?   

And apparently Jesus is fairly accessible:  "Where two or more are gathered in my name..."

Edited January 24, 2022 by Olmec Donald

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

Quote

What is your take on John 14:6?  "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

This seems to very quickly go into questions of authority...

Actually this seems to go directly to Jesus, without any intermediary authority.   If we desire to come unto the Father, who or what is "the way"?   

Christ is the only way to the Father.  I think all of Christendom believes that.

The debate is whether we can go directly to Christ.  I would argue that we can for some things and not for others.
And that is where the controversy seems to come up.  Do we need anyone between us and the Savior?

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Olmec Donald said:

Quote

 

What is your take on John 14:6?  "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

This seems to very quickly go into questions of authority...

 

Actually this seems to go directly to Jesus, without any intermediary authority.   

Jesus is the epitome of "onlyness."  That was my point.

As for "intermediary authority," I think Ephesians 4 and other provisions lays that out:

Quote

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

I think these are "intermediary authorit{ies}."

1 minute ago, Olmec Donald said:

If we desire to come unto the Father, who or what is "the way"?   

Jesus Christ.  But prophets and apostles sure seem to be an important part of the plan.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Olmec Donald]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As for "intermediary authority," I think Ephesians 4 and other provisions lays that out:

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

I think these are "intermediary authorit{ies}."

I think these are teachers for perfecting the saints, for the work of the ministry, and for the edifying of the body of Christ.  I don't see where any of these  functions Paul lays out is a description of an intermediary authority in between the individual and Christ.  

27 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The debate is whether we can go directly to Christ.  I would argue that we can for some things and not for others.
And that is where the controversy seems to come up.  Do we need anyone between us and the Savior?

My understanding is that Christ himself is the keeper of the gate.  He employs no servant there.  2 Nephi 9:41.   

I have no problem with religions trying to help people in their journey, but I'm not comfortable with religions teaching that they are in effect the gatekeepers.  

Edited January 25, 2022 by Olmec Donald

[smac97]

32 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

I think these are teachers for perfecting the saints, for the work of the ministry, and for the edifying of the body of Christ.  I don't see where any of these  functions Paul lays out is a description of an intermediary authority in between the individual and Christ.  

What function did they play, if not an "intermediary authority"?

32 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

My understanding is that Christ himself is the keeper of the gate.  He employs no servant there.  2 Nephi 9:41.   

"Keeper of the gate," sure.  But meanwhile Christ gave "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" to his apostles (Matt. 16:19).  And his apostles had continuing mandates after He ascended.

32 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

I have no problem with religions trying to help people in their journey, but I'm not comfortable with religions teaching that they are in effect the gatekeepers.  

I don't think the Church teaches that.  But we do teach that "whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."  That sounds like something akin to "intermediary authority."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Olmec Donald]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What function did they play, if not an "intermediary authority"?

I think the context indicates they were teachers.

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Keeper of the gate," sure.  But meanwhile Christ gave "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" to his apostles (Matt. 16:19).  And his apostles had continuing mandates after He ascended.

Good point.

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think the Church teaches [that it's the gatekeeper]. 

The "covenant path" isn't "the way"?   Is there any other "way"?  

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But we do teach that "whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."  That sounds like something akin to "intermediary authority."

Yes, that's Matthew 16:19.  Again, good point.  

Hypothetically, what happens if those apostles make a mistake?  Is it binding?  

Edited January 25, 2022 by Olmec Donald