Some questions and thoughts about why people leave the Church.

[Navidad]

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

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.

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?

Yes sir, I am suggesting that claiming exclusivity with certainty is wrong. That is a core belief of mine, but of course I may be wrong! You made the following statement - also interesting -"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."  Doesn't that put us at a logjam of exclusivity or correctness if we both were equally certain about what God has revealed to us? Certainly Protestants and all other non-Protestant Christians seek the will of God for and in their lives. They seek knowledge, insight, wisdom, self-control, revelation, etc., do they not? Do we not all believe in both general and special revelation? How do we resolve exclusivity and absolutism when we both believe we have equally valid knowledge from the same source (God)? That is the question that interests me most. For you, perhaps it isn't even a question. According to your position, if you and I receive different knowledge from God, I think you assume yours is correct and mine is wrong, or else you wouldn't say "that can no (sic) be allowed to change what I was given." I would simply say, "Yep, that is what I believe, but I may be wrong! I don't have enough confidence in the antenna with which I receive revelation, inclusive of interpretation of scripture, and insight into God's will for my life for me to be exclusive, authoritative, or certain about much of anything. If we are both right in our shared beliefs about eternity, some day we will know with exclusivity, authoritative knowledge, and certainty about eternity - that day isn't today - unless we get called into His presence today.

Indeed my belief does not include exclusivity on any gospel principles. Sure, my belief includes beliefs, but it does not include certainty or exclusivity. It includes provisional certainty - a rather prevalent concept in the Evangelical community. Many Protestants only allow for the Bible as divine scripture. But that does not mean that they believe that the scriptures are the only way God speaks and reveals himself to us. Many Protestant faiths' founders had visions, received insight through meditation, prayer, solitude, etc. I was taught to seek God's will (outside of Scripture) for who I should marry, where I should go to college, what vocation I should pursue, how I should conduct my life, and on and on. I was also taught there are some things that the Scriptures reveal to us all that we need to know - God's moral will for us for example. I was also taught that some things are not worth praying about because God won't reveal them to us even if we ask. His sovereign will for our lives is one example of that. If we knew what He knows, we might never get out of bed!

There are many Protestant and non-Protestant Christian groups who believe in modern apostles and prophets. Virtually all Apostolic and Pentecostal groups do. I may disagree with them, but I am neither exclusive, authoritative, certain, or absolute in those beliefs. There is much room in my faith and system of beliefs for uncertainty and for change. I prefer it that way because it keeps me humble, a trait widely valued by Mennonites. I am not too humble when I am irritated. I admit that and continue to work on that well into my seventies. Thanks for the dialogue. I really appreciate that.

Edited March 19, 2022 by Navidad

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

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

Spiritual experiences are not factual or evidential outside of the person claiming to experience them.

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Spiritual experiences are not factual or evidential outside of the person claiming to experience them.

Do they have to be?

[Navidad]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

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)?

Hi Calm: Thanks for the example. I would take it one step farther - further? I feel (that is the best word I can use) that my LDS friends aren't telling me my painting and my taste in paintings isn't just less beautiful than theirs, but that it is ugly, incomplete (come to us and let us add to what you have), that I am deceiving myself if I think mine is as beautiful as yours, and frankly that I am wrong, incorrect, and less than in my judgment if I consider it beautiful. I would never say any of those about your painting or your taste in art. There is no question that there are Fundamentalists and probably some who claim the Evangelical mantle who would. But I am not one of them and I know many more who are just like me in that sense.

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, Navidad said:

Hi Calm: Thanks for the example. I would take it one step farther - further? I feel (that is the best word I can use) that my LDS friends aren't telling me my painting and my taste in paintings isn't just less beautiful than theirs, but that it is ugly, incomplete (come to us and let us add to what you have), that I am deceiving myself if I think mine is as beautiful as yours, and frankly that I am wrong, incorrect, and less than in my judgment if I consider it beautiful. I would never say any of those about your painting or your taste in art. There is no question that there are Fundamentalists and probably some who claim the Evangelical mantle who would. But I am not one of them and I know many more who are just like me in that sense.

This they should stop, and lean only to their beliefs and no more comparing like they do. Better left unsaid then add insult to injury.

[Teancum]

On 3/17/2022 at 3:56 PM, 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. 

Or they simply conclude that your statements of faith as if they are fact are not in fact, facts. It is not that they don't want what you describe.  They just don't believe it any longer and many have good reason not to.

[Teancum]

On 3/18/2022 at 6:45 AM, 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

Again these are just assertions of faith.  It is fine if that is what you believe but others have honestly come to different conclusions.  For me, losing faith in the LDS message actually has brought greater light into my life.  For me at least seeing the world without the narrow lens that Mormonism creates had been very enlightening.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Do they have to be?

If you want to convince someone your spiritual experiences are facts an evidence then yes they have to be non exclusive and testable.  Otherwise they are useless to anyone but yourself at lest as far as determining truth goes.

[Navidad]

On 3/18/2022 at 3:45 AM, SwedishLDS said:

Choosing lesser light

Many years ago I was in your country, just across the border from Finland, way up above the polar circle. I attended services and sang in a tiny Lutheran/community church in the tiny village of Muodoslompolo (I may not have spelled that right). My good friend, a Finnish rock star played the ancient organ and I sang. I was so impressed with the kindness and faith of the people there. Their light shone! I would hardly describe them as having a "lesser light" than those in the LDS ward we have attended for some years. I think the light of Christ and of the Holy Spirit was, in fact just about equal in both places - Quite Bright!! 

Edited March 19, 2022 by Navidad

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

This they should stop, and lean only to their beliefs and no more comparing like they do. Better left unsaid then add insult to injury.

I am not sure who the "they" is in your reply, but I think I agree with everything you said! Thanks.

[SwedishLDS]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Many years ago I was in your country, just across the border from Finland, way up above the polar circle. I attended services and sang in a tiny Lutheran/community church in the tiny village of Muodoslompolo (I may not have spelled that right). My good friend, a Finnish rock star played the ancient organ and I sang. I was so impressed with the kindness and faith of the people there. Their light shone! I would hardly describe them as having a "lesser light" than those in the LDS ward we have attended for some years. I think the light of Christ and of the Holy Spirit was, in fact just about equal in both places - Quite Bright!! 

thank you; I can appreciate that. I certainly have had similar experiences and can agree with the sentiment to some degree. Though, I feel like way to many treat religion as just another title among others, or have become so relativistic that they hardly believe anything anymore. Revelation is real and God does speak.

Ultimately its a question of priesthood authority to me.

Edited March 19, 2022 by SwedishLDS

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hi Calm: Thanks for the example. I would take it one step farther - further? I feel (that is the best word I can use) that my LDS friends aren't telling me my painting and my taste in paintings isn't just less beautiful than theirs, but that it is ugly, incomplete (come to us and let us add to what you have), that I am deceiving myself if I think mine is as beautiful as yours, and frankly that I am wrong, incorrect, and less than in my judgment if I consider it beautiful. I would never say any of those about your painting or your taste in art. There is no question that there are Fundamentalists and probably some who claim the Evangelical mantle who would. But I am not one of them and I know many more who are just like me in that sense.

(It's further  ) 

where there is some in the fundamentalist evangelical movement (though personally, I've also often felt more like "many" since I lived in areas of the US that these voices were extremely prominent and widespread) there are those who in taking an assertion of exceptionalism assume that all other faiths have nothing worthwhile or are "ugly, incomplete." Believing that there is something foundationally important in our church doesn't have to mean that all other forms of paintings are in permanent deficit. I just finished watching a series of videos about world religions as I wanted to brush up more on major spiritual worldviews. I particularly resonated with Sikhism and was curious about the connection of Zoroastrianism to judeo-christian-muslim views. I was least interested in jainism and certain aspects of buddhism  (i've never been a big fan of the concept of nirvana as currently taught in the larger branch of buddhism...maybe less so in the smaller one and earlier renditions (maybe?)). I think there's things in Sikhism that I can see their tradition better highlights about God than my faith does (and I would debate, much of christianity in general). There's things from buddhist traditions I've learned enough to incorporate in my own personal practices (meditation) and variations from hinduism as well (yoga). This doesn't take away from my belief that there's something very important in the LDS faith that is needed for the overall work of God. 

Art is one of my favorite topics....one thing I find interesting is how it's exploded in forms of expression in the last 2 centuries especially. Varying art forms worked to deconstruct or explore specific aspects and limits to artistic expression. Study of principles in areas like conceptionalism, minimalism. Critiques of other forms. Pushing at the limits of what even can be called art. Some moves sort of hit dead ends in pushing the boundaries and then were reincorporated back into other art forms and referenced in other works. In art, there is poor art. This is art that's usually technically poorly executed. For example a religious artist who once painted jumped ship and started going into digital art. His first digital pieces especially sucked. it made my art soul cringe...a lot. But because of his name recognition and selling to an audience that was not well versed in technique people just saw a pretty picture that made them feel good about Jesus. If you're reading judgement in there you're not wrong. I'm an artist....I also critique my own work on execution...my first non-representative abstract was poorly done and elicited a feeling of sea-sickness in people. Anyways all art to some degree relies on foundational principles (including poorly executed art) in creating story and message and to in essence reflect back parts of cultural and individual experiences.

I think of faiths like that....not just christian ones, all of them. Some principles are almost universal across the board. Other foundational principles are found more in others and nearly missing in some. You believe in Jesus as the son of God. We'd both agree that is a foundational principle. Most world religions don't believe this, at least in the same degree. Personally, I don't picture this as meaning they're lost forever, that they're expressions of faith and truth are suddenly less beautiful and earlier works before introduction to this principle are less worthwhile...It means there's a principle that is important, that should be known and understood and incorporated into a more solid understanding of godly expression. I wouldn't expect someone to then express like me. Don't get me wrong, there's people who would and do...I just wouldn't. They may likely still maintain and incorporate other principles they learned growing up with other focuses with this new principle. There may be some that change or are removed as they grow. There's some that I will likely learn, explore, and integrate from their views of principles that I may not have as strong of a grasp on. I don't see that as very different as the church of jesus christ of latterday saints in relationship to other christian faiths. There are principles - one that I view as foundational or at the very least expanding and reintegrating certain "dead ends" (such as a more detailed conceptualization of the after life) - that are important. 

 

Again, you can feel looked down on as "less than" I get that. I can see people in our faith who exude this. It doesn't mean that there aren't important principle that are here which can add in expressions. It doesn't mean there aren't beautiful expressions of the Divine and divine principle from the walk you've already been on. That's not how God's art gallery works, IMHO. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

 

[BlueDreams]

Oh, I should add: in my worldview/faith, no one on earth has completely mastered Godly expression. So therefore no one can claim absolute exceptionalism. There are specific really important things in the church...it's not all things and we will still be expected to grow, repent, and change as we expand in both technique and better incorporating foundational truths. So that's where the humility steps in. 

 

With luv,

BD

[mfbukowski]

43 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Art is one of my favorite topics....one thing I find interesting is how it's exploded in forms of expression in the last 2 centuries especially. Varying art forms worked to deconstruct or explore specific aspects and limits to artistic expression. Study of principles in areas like conceptionalism, minimalism. Critiques of other forms. Pushing at the limits of what even can be called art. Some moves sort of hit dead ends in pushing the boundaries and then were reincorporated back into other art forms and referenced in other works. In art, there is poor art. This is art that's usually technically poorly executed.

Just to make the point, there are parallels here with religion, there are "literalists" and those who see more abstractly.  This is a trend starting with the Impressionists, and growing to the point where art jumps off the walls, into performance pieces

I copied this from a post I made on another forum - I could not remove the formatting... sorry!

The above reminds me of the trend in the 20th century away from the notion of representationalism in both art and philosophy- the notion that language and visual arts "represent reality" or "correspond to reality". In philosophy of course this relates to the correspondece theory of truth, and in art simply representationalism in general. I am reminded of the painting "This is not a pipe" by Magritte- (translating from the French), created to illustrate that images are not objects, and on the other hand Wittgenstein's "Philosohical Investigations" which explores the relationship between meaning and context - and the fact that words are not things. I think we often forget how these two important trends are actually one trend toward exploring what we often see as "representation of reality' as an erroneous impossibility when we see it as the Pragmatists saw it- that "representation" is FUNCTIONAL and "reality" is based on the flux of human experience, definable only through a process like William James' idea of "Radical Empiricim"- an empiricism which includes context and relations of the object being studied.

Edited March 19, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Bernard Gui]

On 3/17/2022 at 11:32 AM, Meadowchik said:

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. 

 

The assuredness of eternity is one of the greatest gifts of God.

[Bernard Gui]

On 3/17/2022 at 2:54 PM, 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.

It all depends on one’s view of Priesthood keys and the Restoration. With those, it is exceptional. Without those, it’s just another of the many off-shoots of the Judeo/Christian tradition. 

[Bernard Gui]

On 3/19/2022 at 10:05 AM, Teancum said:

Again these are just assertions of faith.  It is fine if that is what you believe but others have honestly come to different conclusions.  For me, losing faith in the LDS message actually has brought greater light into my life.  For me at least seeing the world without the narrow lens that Mormonism creates had been very enlightening.

I have found that the LDS lens is the broadest one of all. Among other things, it spans the universe in both time and place, gives meaning to sorrow and suffering, champions agency, justifies the creation, promises just and merciful compensation for this brief earthly experience, and holds open the possibilities of participation in the eternal work of God for those who desire to do so. 

Edited March 21, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

The assuredness of eternity is one of the greatest gifts of God.

I agree it can be comforting, surely.

Yet there is another way to see the result of it.  I personally think that assuredness of eternity that I held (until recently)  impeded me from experiencing joy and progression. 

Perhaps there'd be a healthy balance in considering it as a double edged sword, and being aware of the hazards of relying on an eternity belief. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

personally think that assuredness of eternity that I held (until recently)  impeded me from experiencing joy and progression. 

How did it do that?

[SwedishLDS]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I agree it can be comforting, surely.

Yet there is another way to see the result of it.  I personally think that assuredness of eternity that I held (until recently)  impeded me from experiencing joy and progression. 

Perhaps there'd be a healthy balance in considering it as a double edged sword, and being aware of the hazards of relying on an eternity belief. 

would you care to expand on that? My brother has said some similar things and he has autism and I discovered that he pretty much just combined everything everyone ever said in his mind and picked up a lot of things from other churches that we dont even believe in. Severe misunderstanding because he appearently struggles with seperating what different people has said from eachother so it just kind of jumbles together in his mind. He was afraid of being depressed for all of eternity in the celestial kingdom

Edited March 21, 2022 by SwedishLDS

[Meadowchik]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

How did it do that?

 

9 minutes ago, SwedishLDS said:

would you care to expand on that?

I think the concept of eternity impacted me negatively in multiple ways.

It persuaded me to delay happy experiences now in favour of doing the church-prescribed path to happiness, which can be quite miserable sometimes. To be fair, it's not a bad thing to delay gratification for a worthy return later. But the danger of eternal reward is that it is easy to calculate in favour of any amount of restricted happiness or lifetime suffering against its infinite return.

I think this can lead to lots of self-induced suffering when one believes it's part of the plan toward eternal reward.

So that's two ways so far: restricting happiness, unnecessary suffering.

The next way is that relying on eternal reward can create a sense of detachment between ourselves and the present moment. And this can wreak personal havoc as well as in our relationships. I've noticed that my relationships with LDS believers improve as they focus more on the moment. It reminds me of Christ's teachings about the kingdom of heaven that is in the here and now. 

Of course the kingdom of God would also be a future hope. This is a case of proper balance, in my opinion. Of recognising the hazards of eternity beliefs and arriving at the conviction that we are not expected to wager endless lifetime suffering against the eternal reward--it's okay to say no to suffering when possible--it's okay to seek happiness, and when done in a principled way we might be preparing ourselves to live better in the eternal now than those who rely on it as a delayed promise.

[Meadowchik]

30 minutes ago, SwedishLDS said:

 My brother has said some similar things and he has autism and I discovered that he pretty much just combined everything everyone ever said in his mind and picked up a lot of things from other churches that we dont even believe in. Severe misunderstanding because he appearently struggles with seperating what different people has said from eachother so it just kind of jumbles together in his mind. He was afraid of being depressed for all of eternity in the celestial kingdom

I think what people pick up from church can be pretty random sometimes, something someone said in the hallway once can be treated the same as a general conference talk. Cultural osmosis from general society and other churches are also strong

My son is also autistic, but he's very aware of sources of the information.

I was also keenly aware of the distinction between sources and authorities, per doctrine. And I definitely weighted information against the informer's knowledge and/or authority over sharing info to others

[SwedishLDS]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

My son is also autistic, but he's very aware of sources of the information.

I was also keenly aware of the distinction between sources and authorities, per doctrine. And I definitely weighted information against the informer's knowledge and/or authority over sharing info to others

I see thank you. I didnt intend to pull every person with autism or adhd the same btw. My brother is also one of the smartest and most loving people I know and normally pretty good at source criticism and the like. I know plenty of neuro-divergent people, it was just an example that came readily to hand.

I can emphasise with the excessive work part, although I don’t really see myself having that perspective. Don’t run faster than you can after all as D&C says

Edited March 21, 2022 by SwedishLDS

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

 

I think the concept of eternity impacted me negatively in multiple ways.

It persuaded me to delay happy experiences now in favour of doing the church-prescribed path to happiness, which can be quite miserable sometimes. To be fair, it's not a bad thing to delay gratification for a worthy return later. But the danger of eternal reward is that it is easy to calculate in favour of any amount of restricted happiness or lifetime suffering against its infinite return.

I think this can lead to lots of self-induced suffering when one believes it's part of the plan toward eternal reward.

So that's two ways so far: restricting happiness, unnecessary suffering.

The next way is that relying on eternal reward can create a sense of detachment between ourselves and the present moment. And this can wreak personal havoc as well as in our relationships. I've noticed that my relationships with LDS believers improve as they focus more on the moment. It reminds me of Christ's teachings about the kingdom of heaven that is in the here and now. 

Of course the kingdom of God would also be a future hope. This is a case of proper balance, in my opinion. Of recognising the hazards of eternity beliefs and arriving at the conviction that we are not expected to wager endless lifetime suffering against the eternal reward--it's okay to say no to suffering when possible--it's okay to seek happiness, and when done in a principled way we might be preparing ourselves to live better in the eternal now than those who rely on it as a delayed promise.

I could see how in your experience eternity could lead to more pain. 
It’s definitely not mine, and I’m trying to think of what you describe as the “proper balance” that have influenced my experience of believing in an afterlife. i think there’s a few. 
 

- understanding more about divine love: when I experience God the experience I’ve had most prominently revolves around differing manifestations of love. Love for me, love for other, caring love in difficulty, patient love when I’m not understanding something, teaching love when I’m commanded to do something, refining love when I needed correction. Since love is the vehicle for my experience with God, a perfect love is to me the framework for the afterlife. I don’t think I think of heaven much in terms of “reward” in the afterlife. It seems more like an earth-bound understanding for degrees of glory. an understandable one, though. 
 

- agency. The closest I’ve come to being really miserable in a commandment via god it was when I assumed I had no choice but to do it. When I was (lovingly) corrected and reminded I did have a choice by God, and that I then freely chose the path that was harder in the moment and didn’t make sense at the time but that I knew God desired me to take, it made the experience easier. Not less painful per se but less miserable. 
- less proscribed assertions of what I “should” be doing base on authority figures.  I’m not a fan of doing what leaders say if I haven’t had said advice personally confirmed on my end as something good and applicable for where I’m at. If it is, I incorporate and really tune in. If it isn’t I move on and ignore it. A few times when it’s something wrong I try to help change, if they’re receptive. 
 

- experiences of the life beyond as forms of connection. Also tied a bit to the love framework. When I’ve had brushings of the afterlife, it hasn’t been to assure me of a reward but to encourage and transmit love or affection in the now. In a sense it’s enlarging my sense of community and in that also my capacity to grow and care for others. Often these experiences have come in difficult moments…well more accurately for me, right before difficult moments. I had them so consistently before during a more chaotic chapter, that as much as i cherished the experience I also began wondering what was about to happen that was likely going to really hurt. 
 

so for me, losing a sense of the afterlife would be a great loss and source of strength. Of course it would also be extremely inauthentic for me at this point and likely would mean I lost something important inside myself as well. But I could definitely see how a loss of an imbalanced relationship to the afterlife could be helpful from your Experience as well

 

with luv, 

BD 

 

Edited March 21, 2022 by BlueDreams

[Navidad]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

It all depends on one’s view of Priesthood keys and the Restoration. With those, it is exceptional. Without those, it’s just another of the many off-shoots of the Judeo/Christian tradition. 

Reaction number one - Very well said!   Reaction number two - Being one the "many off-shoots of the Judeo/Christian tradition isn't a bad thing - it is rather exceptional in and of itself. It brings joy, meaning, and yes, assurance of eternity with the Father to many, if not most of us who dwell quite contentedly as an off-shoot!

Reaction number three - In fact, I grow horse radish. After many years, out of many plants, I couldn't tell you which plant is the original and which is the off-shoot! I think that is the way it is with Christianity as a whole, including the LDS Church. There is no meaningful perceivable distinction between any of them! I guess I should also add to put things in perspective - horseradish is my very favorite food group! Just to get in more trouble - my guess is that if we took someone who is completely unfamiliar with Christianity into five (including LDS) Sunday worship services, each of a different Judeo/Christian off-shoot, he or she would probably pick the Pentecostal (assuming that is one of the five) experience to be the original. Oh, and remember, I am not Pentecostal!