Some questions and thoughts about why people leave the Church.

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

For many of us though we do grieve together over the loss privately in our quiet conversations at night, but try to remember that eternity is a very long time. 

The belief in eternity is not something that I have so I don't have that comfort, and yet my parents' love still comforts me in the face of--what seems to me--a brief and passing existence. 

 

[Navidad]

It is still very hard for me to get my head around the concept that it is a negative for someone to "leave the church," especially if by the church one means the LDS church. It would concern me if someone left "the faith" or "the gospel." However if someone left any church to which I have ever belonged, I would wish them well and hope they found a place to worship and fellowship (two ingredients of faith I think are important). The fact that any one institution was reduced by one at that point is insignificant (to me) in the large vast community of Christ. Moving from Mennonite to Mormon, Methodist, or Catholic isn't "converting."  I can't get my head around that, either. It is migrating - as in my 73 years I migrated from Indiana to Pennsylvania to New York to New Jersey back to Pennsylvania to Arkansas, to Texas, to California, to Virginia, to Indiana, to New York, back to California, to Florida, back to California, to Mexico. Each was a change, and opportunity for growth, new worlds, new people, and new opportunities. So it is with "the church." -- The Community of believers that Christ founded here on earth. I bet some of you can't get your heads around that! We are creatures of our own beliefs!

Edited March 17, 2022 by Navidad

[InCognitus]

19 minutes ago, Navidad said:

It is still very hard for me to get my head around the concept that it is a negative for someone to "leave the church," especially if by the church one means the LDS church. It would concern me if someone left "the faith" or "the gospel."

I agree with your overall sentiment, but from an LDS point of view it also depends on how far they are "into the Church" before they "leave the church".   We see baptism as a covenant, but there are also covenants made with God when receiving the priesthood and covenants made with God in the temple, and walking away from or breaking those covenants is not a good thing.  Obviously, if you or the person who leaves the church doesn't believe that the teachings and covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are true, it may not seem like a big deal.  But if they are true (as I see them to be), it is a big deal.   The scriptures teach:  "For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation." (Doctrine and Covenants 82:3).  Similar concepts are taught in Luke 12:47-48, John 15:22-24, Hebrews 10:29, and James 3:1. 
 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

I agree with your overall sentiment, but from an LDS point of view it also depends on how far they are "into the Church" before they "leave the church".   We see baptism as a covenant, but there are also covenants made with God when receiving the priesthood and covenants made with God in the temple, and walking away from or breaking those covenants is not a good thing.  Obviously, if you or the person who leaves the church doesn't believe that the teachings and covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are true, it may not seem like a big deal.  But if they are true (as I see them to be), it is a big deal.   The scriptures teach:  "For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation." (Doctrine and Covenants 82:3).  Similar concepts are taught in Luke 12:47-48, John 15:22-24, Hebrews 10:29, and James 3:1. 
 

Thanks, that is extremely well said. For the record, I do believe that most of the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are true. I also believe that most of the teachings of the Mennonite Church, the Baptist Church, The Christian and Missionary Alliance, The Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and the Evangelical Free Church are also true, just to name a few. I have great doubts that all of the teachings of any of them are, without exception true and have great doubt that any of their teachings are absolute truths to the exclusion of any of the others.

Covenants are different. Covenants in this dispensation are, as I understand them between individuals and God. They may be made in a forest, a patio, a cathedral, a temple, or a church. I know of no Christians who as part of their faith journey have not made covenants with God. Therefore I have no problem renewing my covenants with God at the LDS ward Sacrament table, just as the person sitting next to me does the same for his or her own covenants made in a different place and time.  Covenants are personal and I believe meant to be exclusive, as between my wife and me. When we adopted our son we made covenants to him and to the state of Virginia. Both are equally as valid today here in Mexico 44 years later as he continues to live with us and we support him. He was six months old at the time, so he made no covenants to us, but we certainly did to him. His covenants to and with us are less formal and come from 43.5 years of lived experience, love, and commitment. I believe that today his covenants with and to us are as valid as those made by one party (my wife and I) those many years ago. There was an authority superintending them back then (the county, the state of Virginia, and for us, God), but their validity transcends the state, just as our covenants with God transcend any denomination or group.

I mean no debate in any of this. We view things differently. I honor that. Personally, at this point in my life (73) I do not see myself ever believing that those covenants I made with God 65 or so years ago were never valid, or need re-validating by another group, institution, or ordinance. The authority of my covenants are evidenced by God's faithfulness to me over the course of my life, and I hope to a lesser and sometimes faltering degree by my faithfulness to Him. I hope in some way that makes some sense to you even though you disagree with it. I only ask you to receive it, not agree with it. Best, Navidad.

Edited March 17, 2022 by Navidad

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

It is still very hard for me to get my head around the concept that it is a negative for someone to "leave the church," especially if by the church one means the LDS church

We are creatures of our own beliefs!

Your last statement is very true!  Which is precisely why that if you want to understand the creature (Latter-day Saints), you have to understand the belief.  Our beliefs and perspectives of "the Church (singular)" are quite different from your beliefs and concepts about "church (sectarian)". 

[Navidad]

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

Your last statement is very true!  Which is precisely why that if you want to understand the creature (Latter-day Saints), you have to understand the belief.  Our beliefs and perspectives of "the Church (singular)" are quite different from your beliefs and concepts about "church (sectarian)". 

Your last statement is very true! Which is precisely why that if you want to understand all other Christian churches in the world, you have to understand their belief. Our beliefs and perspectives of "the Church (singular" are quite different from your beliefs and concepts about "church (sectarian).  ------- I agree with you completely. I only ask that you receive our beliefs as you would have us receive yours. Not accept, agree with, but receive in a spirit of humility, love, and respect. On my part, I offer you that.

[MrShorty]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

It is still very hard for me to get my head around the concept that it is a negative for someone to "leave the church," especially if by the church one means the LDS church. It would concern me if someone left "the faith" or "the gospel."

For the record, I do believe that most of the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are true. I also believe that most of the teachings of the Mennonite Church, the Baptist Church, The Christian and Missionary Alliance, The Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and the Evangelical Free Church are also true, just to name a few. I have great doubts that all of the teachings of any of them are, without exception true and have great doubt that any of their teachings are absolute truths to the exclusion of any of the others.

I find as my own faith journey progresses that I am coming into more agreement with you and less agreement with the "one and only true Church" teachings that are part of LDS discourse -- especially those promoting "Mormon exceptionalism" (or should that be LDS exceptionalism or Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints exceptionalism). I find myself more and more seeing the LDS Church as one of many Christian churches rather than some exceptionally superior Christian church. It certainly has some unique doctrines and beliefs and some unusual ways that people interact with the institution, so I am certainly not trying to say it just like all the other Christian churches, and I doubt that one could or should truly extract this Mormon exceptionalism from the faith (pretty hard with D&C 1:38 in the canon).

I guess I'm personally just finding the Mormon exceptionalism a bit overstated sometimes, and maybe not even true at all.

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

It is still very hard for me to get my head around the concept that it is a negative for someone to "leave the church," especially if by the church one means the LDS church.

I don't really care if someone leaves the church.  Everyone is given their agency to choose to follow or not follow God.  To believe or not believe.  If a person chooses to drop out of medical school, should it bother those who remain in school to become doctors? The benefit of the LDS Church is that it is the only vehicle that exists have for a person who desires celestial glory, eternal family, and exaltation.   If that is something that is not important for a person, there is no reason to be a member of the church.   They can be happy in a Terrestrial or Telestial inheritance.  Their choices don't affect our destiny at all.  God wants us all to enjoy the life that he has.  To be a celestial billionaire so to speak.  Have everything that he has.  A lot of people don't want that.  They rather live a paycheck to paycheck lifestyle in the Terrestrial or Telestial kingdom.  If that is what they want and it will make them happy, we should be happy for them. 

[pogi]

59 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I agree with you completely. I only ask that you receive our beliefs as you would have us receive yours. Not accept, agree with, but receive in a spirit of humility, love, and respect. On my part, I offer you that.

Agreed completely, as well.  I was just offering that in hopes of helping you "wrap your head around" why leaving "the Church" might be viewed by some as a negative thing.  It is according to our beliefs of what the Church is.  It is not because we don't receive your beliefs in a spirit of humility, love, and respect (I wish I could speak for everyone), but as you say, we simply don't agree with many of them.

Edited March 17, 2022 by pogi

[sunstoned]

9 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I don't really care if someone leaves the church.  Everyone is given their agency to choose to follow or not follow God.  To believe or not believe.  If a person chooses to drop out of medical school, should it bother those who remain in school to become doctors? The benefit of the LDS Church is that it is the only vehicle that exists have for a person who desires celestial glory, eternal family, and exaltation.   If that is something that is not important for a person, there is no reason to be a member of the church.   They can be happy in a Terrestrial or Telestial inheritance.  Their choices don't affect our destiny at all.  God wants us all to enjoy the life that he has.  To be a celestial billionaire so to speak.  Have everything that he has.  A lot of people don't want that.  They rather live a paycheck to paycheck lifestyle in the Terrestrial or Telestial kingdom.  If that is what they want and it will make them happy, we should be happy for them. 

It depends on a person's perspective.  It seems like your lens is one of LDS exceptionalism.  I believe that many (if not most) people who leave the church do not hold the opinion that "The benefit of the LDS Church is that it is the only vehicle that exists have for a person who desires celestial glory, eternal family, and exaltation."

 

 

[SwedishLDS]

5 hours ago, sunstoned said:

It depends on a person's perspective.  It seems like your lens is one of LDS exceptionalism.  I believe that many (if not most) people who leave the church do not hold the opinion that "The benefit of the LDS Church is that it is the only vehicle that exists have for a person who desires celestial glory, eternal family, and exaltation."

 

 

thats a pretty big difference and you seem pretty indifferent to people losing the truth and the gospel, important ordinance and prophetic guidance. Choosing lesser light.

I mean of course they don’t believe that, otherwise they wouldn’t have left. They still lost the truth. The church pf Jesus Christ is after all Gods only restored church. All the other churches doesn’t hold the priesthod nor have precious restored truths. Doesn’t mean the are worthless, but still. If one believe the Book of Mormon then this much self evidently follows

Edited March 18, 2022 by SwedishLDS

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, sunstoned said:

It depends on a person's perspective.  It seems like your lens is one of LDS exceptionalism.  I believe that many (if not most) people who leave the church do not hold the opinion that "The benefit of the LDS Church is that it is the only vehicle that exists have for a person who desires celestial glory, eternal family, and exaltation."

Opinion is irrelevant.  Something either is or is not.

In the end it won't matter if truth is rejected by a sincere unbeliever or one with no belief either way.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, SwedishLDS said:

thats a pretty big difference and you seem pretty indifferent to people losing the truth and the gospel, important ordinance and prophetic guidance. Choosing lesser light.

I mean of course they don’t believe that, otherwise they wouldn’t have left. They still lost the truth. The church pf Jesus Christ is after all Gods only restored church. All the other churches doesn’t hold the priesthod nor have precious restored truths. Doesn’t mean the are worthless, but still. If one believe the Book of Mormon then this much self evidently follows

Well this is part of the problem with accomodating others into the fold. Perhaps you would call your certainty humility before God, but is it really?

Is it humility to set upon one way and call it right above all others?

I think that spiritual  humility requires more than that. It requires the ability to recognize that one takes the risk of denying one truth when one holds to a belief. With that humility, respect for others grows, because it becomes clear that we're in similar boats when it comes to knowing.

Indeed, spiritual humility results in the insight that others may know their beliefs are truth just as sincerely and clearly as I know mine are truth.

[Meadowchik]

28 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Opinion is irrelevant.  Something either is or is not.

In the end it won't matter if truth is rejected by a sincere unbeliever or one with no belief either way.

And that applies to misbelievers, too.

What is true is still true even if were not to align with LDS doctrine, correct?

To be clear, I'm not arguing that LDS should denounce their faith, but just for a bit more spiritual humility about LDS convictions. (Of course that goes for all beliefs.)

Those who exercise that have a more profound impact in loving relationships, in my experience.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

What is true is still true even if were not to align with LDS doctrine, correct?

Absolutely.  There are things I am convinced the Church today has wrong doctrinally, just from Church scriptures.  Not every Church interpretation of doctrine came by revelation, some were established by different scholarly Church leaders and caught on.

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

To be clear, I'm not arguing that LDS should denounce their faith, but just for a bit more spiritual humility about LDS convictions. (Of course that goes for all beliefs.)

Those who exercise that have a more profound impact in loving relationships, in my experience.

One of our articles of faith is to respect other's right to believe differently, spiritual humility if you like.

But there's a difference between respecting the right to differing belief and giving the belief itself credence.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Absolutely.  There are things I am convinced the Church today has wrong doctrinally, just from Church scriptures.  Not every Church interpretation of doctrine came by revelation, some were established by different scholarly Church leaders and caught on.

One of our articles of faith is to respect other's right to believe differently, spiritual humility if you like.

But there's a difference between respecting the right to differing belief and giving the belief itself credence.

I would be very interested to know what you mean by "giving the belief itself credence." I don't want a Webster's definition of "credence," but you what you think you would be doing by giving a different belief "credence." I think that is very important. I respect you a lot and would love to dig a little deeper into that. Thanks so much.

[Kevin Christensen]

19 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I find as my own faith journey progresses that I am coming into more agreement with you and less agreement with the "one and only true Church" teachings that are part of LDS discourse -- especially those promoting "Mormon exceptionalism" (or should that be LDS exceptionalism or Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints exceptionalism). I find myself more and more seeing the LDS Church as one of many Christian churches rather than some exceptionally superior Christian church. It certainly has some unique doctrines and beliefs and some unusual ways that people interact with the institution, so I am certainly not trying to say it just like all the other Christian churches, and I doubt that one could or should truly extract this Mormon exceptionalism from the faith (pretty hard with D&C 1:38 in the canon).

I guess I'm personally just finding the Mormon exceptionalism a bit overstated sometimes, and maybe not even true at all.

Notice that quotations marks here--- "one and only true Church" -- do not actually match what D&C 1:30 says, which, I think, advocates a very different concept.

Quote

the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually

 Rather than misquoting, and then complaining about the implications of that misquote, I have found it enlightening to read and contextualize carefully. As I put in in "Sophic Box and Mantic Vista":

Quote

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

In considering the source of the misreading offered, rather than binding LDS doctrine, I see normal and unavoidable human behavior, best expressed, I think, in the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth:

Quote

The Perry Scheme is based on a study of the way students develop during their college years in moving from provincial communities to a diverse university environment.53 Here are Positions 1 and 2 of 9:

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

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

Position 2 – Multiplicity Prelegitimate. (Resisting snake)

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

In "Sophic Box and Mantic Vista," I went on to make the case that by precept and example, Joseph Smith tries to lead us to Position 9.

Quote

Perry’s Position 9: Commitments in Relativism further developed, has this:

The person now has a developed sense of irony and can more easily embrace other’s viewpoints. He can accept life as just that “life,” just the way it is! Now he holds the commitments he makes in a condition of Provisional Ultimacy, meaning that for him what he chooses to be truth IS his truth, and he acts as if it is ultimate truth, but there is still a “provision” for change. He has no illusions about having “arrived” permanently on top of some heap, he is ready and knows he will have to retrace his journey over and over, but he has hope that he will do it each time more wisely. He is aware that he is developing his Identity through Commitment. He can affirm the inseparable nature of the knower and the known—meaning he knows he as knower contributes to what he calls known. He helps weld a community by sharing realization of aloneness and gains strength and intimacy through this shared vulnerability. He has discarded obedience in favor of his own agency, and he continues to select, judge, and build.

Compare this from Joseph Smith:

The great designs of God in relation to the salvation of the human family, are very little understood by the professedly wise and intelligent generation in which we live. Various and conflicting are the opinions of men concerning the plan of salvation, the requisitions of the Almighty, the necessary preparations for heaven, the state and condition of departed spirits, and the happiness or misery that is consequent upon the practice of righteousness and iniquity according to their several notions of virtue and vice.

But while one portion of the human race is judging and condemning the other without mercy, the Great Parent of the universe looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care and paternal regard; He views them as His offspring, and without any of those contracted feelings that influence the children of man, causes “His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” He holds the reins of judgment in His hands; He is a wise Lawgiver, and will judge all men, not according to the narrow, contracted notions of men, but, “according to the deeds done in the body whether they be good or evil,” or whether these deeds were done in England, America, Spain, Turkey, or India. He will judge them, “not according to what they have not, but according to what they have,” those who have lived without law, will be judged without law, and those who have a law, will by judged by that law. We need not doubt the wisdom and intelligence of the Great Jehovah; He will award judgment or mercy to all nations according to their several deserts, their means of obtaining intelligence, the laws by which they are governed, the facilities afforded them of obtaining correct information, and His inscrutable designs in relation to the human family; and when the designs of God shall be made manifest, and the curtain of futurity be withdrawn, we shall all of us eventually have to confess that the Judge of all the earth has done right.

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

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Tacenda]

19 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I don't really care if someone leaves the church.  Everyone is given their agency to choose to follow or not follow God.  To believe or not believe.  If a person chooses to drop out of medical school, should it bother those who remain in school to become doctors? The benefit of the LDS Church is that it is the only vehicle that exists have for a person who desires celestial glory, eternal family, and exaltation.   If that is something that is not important for a person, there is no reason to be a member of the church.   They can be happy in a Terrestrial or Telestial inheritance.  Their choices don't affect our destiny at all.  God wants us all to enjoy the life that he has.  To be a celestial billionaire so to speak.  Have everything that he has.  A lot of people don't want that.  They rather live a paycheck to paycheck lifestyle in the Terrestrial or Telestial kingdom.  If that is what they want and it will make them happy, we should be happy for them. 

You equate the CK with being a billionaire and the kingdoms below it, with paycheck to paycheck? 

Not me, I don't believe I'd be happy in a CK where I'm there to house millions or billions of spirit children that I will not get to raise, and my existence to them will be zero. That doesn't sound like heaven to me. I'd much rather be an angel, if angels are proactive in helping those on earth. That would be amazing, much like the show, "Touched by An Angel", haha.

The church hasn't painted a very nice picture of the CK for me. So while I'm birthing the billion spirits, will I hang with my earth family? There are so many questions. Also, my earth family or my children are all un-endowed in the temple. So if I were the TBM I once was I would have to visit them in another kingdom as well? I guess I shouldn't even type this post as I'm inactive and don't hold a current recommend. So I would be with my kids and husband, since he's the same.

It gets super hairy to me, and not quite cut and dry the hereafter, is it? So people are living a religion that is that unclear? Donated their time, talents and all they possess to the church, for the mystery of the CK, I guess? Or I guess we would live with God, who to me, is such a mystery as well. The Savior not so much. 

I get what you're saying, but the analogy doesn't help me want to attain the CK, I'd rather not be a billionaire, or I'd give most of it away if I was. 

 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I would be very interested to know what you mean by "giving the belief itself credence." I don't want a Webster's definition of "credence," but you what you think you would be doing by giving a different belief "credence." I think that is very important. I respect you a lot and would love to dig a little deeper into that. Thanks so much.

Well, for example:

I respect the Catholic belief in their baptism of infants by sprinkling.  I respect their right to believe it.
That's not the same as believing it to be a valid baptism in any way.

I can respect a Hindu belief in Shiva and their right to believe that.  I don't have to act as though Shiva actually exists.

I can respect the civil marriage license and treat those people as married, but I don't have to believe that God had any role or power in the joining.

I believe we should respect other religions.  I believe they have every right to their beliefs.  I don't believe we have to behave as though their beliefs are true, valid, or efficacious, especially when we see doctrinal or scriptural issues with them.

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, for example:

I respect the Catholic belief in their baptism of infants by sprinkling.  I respect their right to believe it.
That's not the same as believing it to be a valid baptism in any way.

I can respect a Hindu belief in Shiva and their right to believe that.  I don't have to act as though Shiva actually exists.

I can respect the civil marriage license and treat those people as married, but I don't have to believe that God had any role or power in the joining.

I believe we should respect other religions.  I believe they have every right to their beliefs.  I don't believe we have to behave as though their beliefs are true, valid, or efficacious, especially when we see doctrinal or scriptural issues with them.

Thanks my friend. I think this helps. I am trying to understand what the mirrored version of that would be. Let me try:

Navidad says:

I respect the LDS belief in their baptism by immersion, and its salvific nature, and that it is the only valid baptism by the correct authority.
That's not the same as believing it to be the only valid baptism or salvific in any way.

I can respect an LDS belief in the celestial kingdom as separate from other eternal kingdoms and their right to believe that. I don't have to act as though the celestial kingdom actually exists.

I can respect the endowment and sealing ceremonies in the temples, but I don't have to believe that God has any role or power in any of them.

I believe we should respect other religions. I believe they have every right to their beliefs. I don't believe we have to behave as though their beliefs are true, valid, or efficacious, especially when we see doctrinal or scriptural issues with them.

Now, let me make it very clear that I (Navidad) would not say any of those things. I am simply trying to mirror the corollary of what you said. IF I said those things (what I wrote above) would you not take the position that I am somehow anti-Mormon, anti-your beliefs and/or somehow biased against the valid beliefs of the LDS church and its members? How would we join together in inter-faith efforts? Simply feed the poor together while quietly denying the validity of the other and his core beliefs?

It doesn't seem that your certainty is in any way provisional given our shared lack of knowledge of what truly exists beyond the veil and in eternity. Is that an unfair statement?

I do think I have to act as things really are. I don't really know for sure whether the celestial kingdom, as you describe it exists or not.  I think I have to say that your authority to baptize as you wish and with your church's authority is valid. It isn't mine. . . but it is valid before God. I think I have to behave as if your beliefs may be true, valid, or efficacious, even though I see doctrinal or scriptural issues with them. You interpret. I interpret. I go on my way, but with a strong belief that I have to respect your beliefs because many of them may be righter (not a word I know) than mine. You seem to reject out of hand that my beliefs might in some way be righter than yours. Is that fair? I think we have differing beliefs and differing certainties given our mutually shared glass through which we both look darkly. Is that fair? Thanks for the discussion. Take care.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Now, let me make it very clear that I (Navidad) would not say any of those things. I am simply trying to mirror the corollary of what you said. IF I said those things (what I wrote above) would you not take the position that I am somehow anti-Mormon, anti-your beliefs and/or somehow biased against the valid beliefs of the LDS church and its members? 

No, actually I wouldn't.  Your tone might indicate "anti", but a statement of disbelief doesn't to me.  If we can't acknowledge what we don't believe then how can we make statements of belief.

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

It doesn't seem that your certainty is in any way provisional given our shared lack of knowledge of what truly exists beyond the veil and in eternity. Is that an unfair statement?

Depends if you consider spiritual witnesses faith or knowledge.  If God tells me something is so I consider that knowledge.  If someone else doesn't agree or even if they believe God told them differently that can no be allowed to change what I was given.

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I think I have to say that your authority to baptize as you wish and with your church's authority is valid. It isn't mine. . . but it is valid before God. I think I have to behave as if your beliefs may be true, valid, or efficacious, even though I see doctrinal or scriptural issues with them. You interpret. I interpret. I go on my way, but with a strong belief that I have to respect your beliefs because many of them may be righter (not a word I know) than mine. You seem to reject out of hand that my beliefs might in some way be righter than yours. Is that fair? I think we have differing beliefs and differing certainties given our mutually shared glass through which we both look darkly. Is that fair? Thanks for the discussion. Take care.

Interesting.

Does your belief not include exclusivity on any gospel principles?  Most protestants only allow for the Bible as divine scripture.  Most only accept prophets that predate Christ and the Apostles.

Are you suggesting that claiming exclusivity is wrong?

Edited March 18, 2022 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

10 hours ago, Navidad said:

IF I said those things (what I wrote above) would you not take the position that I am somehow anti-Mormon, anti-your beliefs and/or somehow biased against the valid beliefs of the LDS church and its members?

Biased against as in you don’t believe they are true, sure.  Anti-Mormon, anti my beliefs…why would I think that?

If you look at a painting and don’t see it as beautiful while I do, is expressing your opinion somehow detracting from my own experience or in any way trying to diminish it?  If not, then why couldn’t the same approach be applied to our religious experience?  What I find as most beautiful in my faith I can understand you don’t see as attractive, it may be even off putting to you, but as long as you don’t attempt to convince me I don’t understand my own experience and you know better, why would I think you were anti my faith?  
 

If you have another painting that you adore and you invest your time and resources into promoting it while not investing any effort into promoting my beloved painting, does that indicate a desire to diminish or destroy or just disrespect my faith?  If we even spend time debating the different aspects of our two paintings and we each make points on how our painting is better at conveying light or emotion than the other’s painting, does that indicate we disrespect the other painting or wish it to be destroyed (which is what anti- implies for me)?

Edited March 19, 2022 by Calm

[sunstoned]

22 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Opinion is irrelevant.  Something either is or is not.

In the end it won't matter if truth is rejected by a sincere unbeliever or one with no belief either way.

I agree, opinion (and belief) are irrelevant.  Truth will always be supported by facts and evidence. 

[sunstoned]

23 hours ago, SwedishLDS said:

thats a pretty big difference and you seem pretty indifferent to people losing the truth and the gospel, important ordinance and prophetic guidance. Choosing lesser light.

I mean of course they don’t believe that, otherwise they wouldn’t have left. They still lost the truth. The church pf Jesus Christ is after all Gods only restored church. All the other churches doesn’t hold the priesthod nor have precious restored truths. Doesn’t mean the are worthless, but still. If one believe the Book of Mormon then this much self evidently follows

I am not indifferent.  I personally went though the loss of belief process.  It was a time of deep study, prayer and reflection for me.  Notice I said loss of belief, not loss of truth.  You make claims about gods only restored church as if this is established fact.  It's not.  It's a belief.  And it that works for you that is fine.  

 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

I agree, opinion (and belief) are irrelevant.  Truth will always be supported by facts and evidence. 

Sure.  But sometimes the facts and evidence are purely spiritual.