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

[Amulek]

22 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

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

I think the Christian sees being a sinner as a natural, unchangeable (by self) state of being; whereas being a "racist" is more of a generalized description of a certain state of affairs.

For most Christians, you were born a sinner and are / always will be a sinner - there's nothing you can do on your own to change that. Whereas being a racist is something that you have more choice / control over. It's also something that can change over time. You can stop being a racist, but you'll probably never stop being a sinner.

I'm okay if you don't think that distinction makes a difference though. I'm not married to the phrase or anything - in fact, off the top of my head, I can't recall ever even using it myself.

 

Quote

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.

Definitely on board with that sentiment.

 

Quote

By the way, love your avatar!

Thanks. Love your name. Makes me want to break out into song.

 

Edited January 25, 2022 by Amulek

[Teancum]

23 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.

And others think that God has personally affirmed that to each of them through the certainty of personal religious experience that they have God's truest church. We have been here many times. Why is your personnel affirmation better than theirs?

23 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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

Your approach above is far from a loving approach.

23 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

 

Edited January 25, 2022 by Teancum

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Do you think that saying "When we speak of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the only true church, we mean that it is the only organization authorized to administer the ordinances of salvation. We mean that it is the only organization led by Jesus Christ, through the earthly ministries of prophets and Apostles." it is any less offensive to other religions than saying we are the only true church?  The author of this article is still claiming exclusiveness for priesthood power and prophets guided by Jesus Christ.  This belief of exclusiveness of priesthood power and being guided directly by Jesus Christ is a core doctrine of the Church.  The LDS church does believe it is the only true church.  Trying to soften that claim by pointing out that other churches have some truth is just a little bit disingenuous.

I do believe the Church has priesthood power to perform ordinances of salvation but that should in no way take away from the work of salvation that other churches both christian and non-christian perform.  99.9% of God's children are being prepared for salvation by other churches not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  I believe this work of salvation by other churches only supports God's work and will save far more lives on this earth than the LDS Church.  This work of salvation on this earth will lead to exhalation for far more of God's children than the work done by the LDS church.  That is why we do temple work.  LDS doctrine teaches that priesthood ordinances are just the final topping on the cake and are not limited to members of the LDS church in this life.

I believe the Church is guided by Jesus Christ through prophets.  I believe any other church with leaders that teach correct principles has leaders that are guided by Jesus Christ.  It unfortunately seems like at time we members view our prophets as exclusively ours when those prophets have the calling to witness Jesus Christ to the world not just members of the Church.  I will be honest that some times I think those prophets forget about ministering directly to the rest of the world rather than just Church members.

I am trying to find a salient point here.

If you believe that other churches have prophets then follow them. We are to learn from the best books, and that's why I study philosophy.

If you find others which preach that we can become like God and have a rational approach to creation, and ceremonies similar to ancient ceremonies for that purpose, go for it.

If you subscribe to the Trinity being held together by some vague "substance", and in creation ex nihilo, follow your heart. 

If you believe that some people cannot receive God's "best" glory because in mortality they did not find the right truth, follow your heart

If your heart tells you that God wants you in another church, follow that.

If Your argument seems to be that other churches lead others to Christ, we agree.

We are only 200 years old.  Catholicism is 2000 years old, protestantism is 500 years old.  

Give us time to catch up.

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

 

Error

Edited January 25, 2022 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Do you think that saying "When we speak of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the only true church, we mean that it is the only organization authorized to administer the ordinances of salvation. We mean that it is the only organization led by Jesus Christ, through the earthly ministries of prophets and Apostles." it is any less offensive to other religions than saying we are the only true church? 

I don't have a metric for judging offensiveness 

But can you find another church which teaches our purpose in life is to become Gods, and claims that God himself is an embodied human? And that every person ever born can achieve this?

Best wishes 

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, Navidad said:

f 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.

Mark has created a paradigm for himself that the LDS Church does not teach. It does not teach it is the most truest. It teaches it is the ONLY TRUE AND LIVING CHURCH.  This is among the many reasons I have trouble taking him seriously.  

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

When I speak with my Maker, He knows me and I know Him.

There is only one person, no telephones no party lines.

So are you a prophet?

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Mark has created a paradigm for himself that the LDS Church does not teach. It does not teach it is the most truest. It teaches it is the ONLY TRUE AND LIVING CHURCH.  This is among the many reasons I have trouble taking him seriously.  

Every thing I have ever posted can be backed up by church official sources, or faithful BYU professors etc.

No the church correctly does not "do" philosophy, but does encourage us to interpret scripture as we are guided by the Holy Spirit.

Everything I believe is scripturally sound.

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So are you a prophet?

Yes, for myself.

We are all to be our own prophets, but there is only one prophet who leads the church 

Moroni 10: 4 and James 1:5

You need to study what we DO believe

 

Edited January 25, 2022 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

48 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And others think that God has personally affirmed that to each of them through the certainty of personal religious experience that they have God's truest church. We have been here many times. Why is your personnel affirmation better than theirs?

Your repeated error which cannot be sustained philosophically.

"Truth" has no philosophically justifiable definition. 

We have been over this repeatedly.

Pronouncing something as "true" = pronouncing an opinion.

That's why I said "truest".

Maybe I should have said " in my opinion"  or "best".

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, search "truth".

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/

Edited January 25, 2022 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Do you think that saying "When we speak of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the only true church, we mean that it is the only organization authorized to administer the ordinances of salvation. We mean that it is the only organization led by Jesus Christ, through the earthly ministries of prophets and Apostles." it is any less offensive to other religions than saying we are the only true church?  The author of this article is still claiming exclusiveness for priesthood power and prophets guided by Jesus Christ.  This belief of exclusiveness of priesthood power and being guided directly by Jesus Christ is a core doctrine of the Church.  The LDS church does believe it is the only true church.  Trying to soften that claim by pointing out that other churches have some truth is just a little bit disingenuous.

I do believe the Church has priesthood power to perform ordinances of salvation but that should in no way take away from the work of salvation that other churches both christian and non-christian perform.  99.9% of God's children are being prepared for salvation by other churches not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  I believe this work of salvation by other churches only supports God's work and will save far more lives on this earth than the LDS Church.  This work of salvation on this earth will lead to exhalation for far more of God's children than the work done by the LDS church.  That is why we do temple work.  LDS doctrine teaches that priesthood ordinances are just the final topping on the cake and are not limited to members of the LDS church in this life.

I believe the Church is guided by Jesus Christ through prophets.  I believe any other church with leaders that teach correct principles has leaders that are guided by Jesus Christ.  It unfortunately seems like at time we members view our prophets as exclusively ours when those prophets have the calling to witness Jesus Christ to the world not just members of the Church.  I will be honest that some times I think those prophets forget about ministering directly to the rest of the world rather than just Church members.

I agree with much of what you say.
But I am trying to determine why the bolded section is phrased as if it's a problem?
If it's true then it's true.  If it offends others that doesn't need to be a concern.

Somewhere it seems like offending someone became the worst sin you can commit.  Christ offended people including other religions on a daily basis and remained without sin.

[James 1 5]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I agree with much of what you say.
But I am trying to determine why the bolded section is phrased as if it's a problem?
If it's true then it's true.  If it offends others that doesn't need to be a concern.

Somewhere it seems like offending someone became the worst sin you can commit.  Christ offended people including other religions on a daily basis and remained without sin.

I like what you said and was inspired to think about the type of peace our Lord Jesus Christ gives to us.  Peace even while in conflict with the opinions of other people who do not know or agree on what our Lord teaches us and gives to us.

I think the type of peace the world offers or tries to offer is less conflict when there is some agreement, which I like when I get some of that.  But what is better is to feel at peace with God even when others disagree with what I know God gives to me.

[Navidad]

20 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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?

Who do you have in mind? A priest or prophet? Or? Sincere question. Thanks.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I agree with much of what you say.
But I am trying to determine why the bolded section is phrased as if it's a problem?
If it's true then it's true.  If it offends others that doesn't need to be a concern.

Somewhere it seems like offending someone became the worst sin you can commit.  Christ offended people including other religions on a daily basis and remained without sin.

We cannot surrender to political correctness. 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Every thing I have ever posted can be backed up by church official sources, or faithful BYU professors etc.

CFRs please.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

No the church correctly does not "do" philosophy, but does encourage us to interpret scripture as we are guided by the Holy Spirit.

If the church does not do philosophy then why do you promote is as a gospel truth?  Hardly and Latter day Saint approaches things like you do. Including the top leaders.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Everything I believe is scripturally sound.

I do not think so.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes, for myself.

Ok

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

We are all to be our own prophets, but there is only one prophet who leads the church 

Who does not use your approach.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Moroni 10: 4 and James 1:5

You need to study what we DO believe

 

I need to study what who believes?

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Your repeated error which cannot be sustained philosophically.

No. Yours cannot.  You cannot have the "truest" religion when others think they do using the same methods you do. It is not a sustainable approach to finding "truth."

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

"Truth" has no philosophically justifiable definition. 

Then why did you say God has told you the LDS Church is the truest religion?

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

We have been over this repeatedly.

Yep.  

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Pronouncing something as "true" = pronouncing an opinion.

That's why I said "truest".

Maybe I should have said " in my opinion"  or "best".

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, search "truth".

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/

I am just going by what you said.

[Navidad]

19 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Except Christ specifically said his Apostles were appointed to judge.  And the world would be judged by the Saints.  Joseph taught that we can't be saved without legal administrators.  The prophets have said the dispensation heads judge their dispensations and bring them to Christ.

I think the idea that we can get directly to Christ without another man is false.   I think Christ is the keeper of the gate to the Father's kingdom.  But we have to return to Christ's presence first.

One of my favorite hymns since I was a boy:

1 Nothing between my soul and the Savior,
Naught of this world's delusive dream:
I have renounced all sinful pleasure-
Jesus is mine! There's nothing between.

Refrain:
Nothing between my soul and the Savior,
So that His blessed face may be seen;
Nothing preventing the least of His favor:
Keep the way clear! Let nothing between.

2 Nothing between, like worldly pleasure:
Habits of life, though harmless they seem,
Must not my heart from Him ever sever-
He is my all! There's nothing between. [Refrain]

3 Nothing between, like pride or station:
Self or friends shall not intervene;
Though it may cost me much tribulation,
I am resolved! There's nothing between. [Refrain]

4 Nothing between, e'en many hard trials,
Though the whole world against me convene;
Watching with prayer and much self denial-
Triumph at last, with nothing between! [Refrain]

[mfbukowski]

22 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Who do you have in mind? A priest or prophet? Or? Sincere question. Thanks.

For what it's worth, I have the same question

One of the reasons I joined the church was Moroni 10: 4

[JLHPROF]

26 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Who do you have in mind? A priest or prophet? Or? Sincere question. Thanks.

We can use the term "priest" if you like.  Priesthood authority is a more correct phrasing.
If we believe the ordinances are required to return to Christ and we believe authority is needed to perform those ordinances then it only stands to reason that we need the help of another man to return to Christ.

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

For what it's worth, I have the same question

One of the reasons I joined the church was Moroni 10: 4

You have the same question about legal administrators of the saving ordinances, the ones required to get back to Christ and his Father?

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

CFRs please.

If the church does not do philosophy then why do you promote is as a gospel truth?  Hardly and Latter day Saint approaches things like you do. Including the top leaders.

I do not think so.

1. Read the book when it's done. That's what it takes to document every belief

2. It is truth according to my testimony and philosophically justifiable definitions of truth. You on the other hand have no standard for falsifiablity, OR truth,  which is justifiable 

[Teancum]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

1. Read the book when it's done. That's what it takes to document every belief

What book?  I I asked for a CFR.  Can you provide it?

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

2. It is truth according to my testimony and philosophically justifiable definitions of truth. You on the other hand have no standard for falsifiablity, OR truth,  which is justifiable 

Your truth is based on you experience as is mine and billions of others. And so many may disagree. Things really are mutually exclusive. You do not seem able to understand this.  

[mfbukowski]

24 minutes ago, Teancum said:

No. Yours cannot.  You cannot have the "truest" religion when others think they do using the same methods you do. It is not a sustainable approach to finding "truth."

Your opinion is not justifiable, imo.

See number 2 above

We disagree on what truth is and is not

I subscribe to Radical Empiricism as first stated by William James, and now a widely accepted standard in Neopragmatism, especially in theology.

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

What book?  I I asked for a CFR.  Can you provide it?

Your truth is based on you experience as is mine and billions of others. And so many may disagree. Things really are mutually exclusive. You do not seem able to understand this.  

CFR on bolding. There are no true THINGS and the concept is itself incoherent.

Linguistic statements find meaning through their context and interpretation. - Ludwig Wittgenstein 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-language/The-later-Wittgenstein

You are asking for me to reference on every post I have ever made, retroactively. Absurd.

I will not do that, nor can I .

I am writing the book and it is about half done

 

Edited January 25, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am trying to come up with a religion that offends absolutely no one. I don’t think it is possible.

I would agree, but am still striving to live my faith (I don't like the word religion) in a way that doesn't offend Christ or more importantly His sacrifice for us on the cross. I worry sometimes that my LDS friends in their certainty that they are the only group which can complete someone's salvation and make it possible for others to experience eternal life with Him, may indeed offend Him, and the breadth, depth, and width of his sacrifice and the fullness of his atonement "once for all." Hebrews 10 says it all.  However I am pretty sure that Hebrews 10 offended the Jews who read it. So I am back to agreeing with you.