The Worldwide Church and LDS Identity

[Navidad]

Today my wife and I went up to the states to get our mail, shop, etc. I almost always have some books waiting for me at our mail box. They are either books I am being asked to review, books someone sent me because they think I would be interested in them, or books I buy because I am interested in them.

Today, among others, I brought home "The Unique Christ in our Pluralist World," edited by Bruce J. Nicholls. I bought it used because it contains some article by theologians and philosophers whose writing I really like. This evening I turned the book over and read the back cover. How many of you read the back covers of books? At the very top in bold print was the following: "Understanding the uniqueness of Jesus Christ is arguably the most important and most urgent task facing the worldwide church today." I began to ponder on that, which led to the following question: Do most faithful members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consider themselves and their church a part or branch of the "worldwide church today?" It seems the LDS church has a complicated relationship with the larger Christian community known as "the worldwide church today." Is that correct? Years ago on this forum I made a comment that I thought the LDS church was one tree in the forest of Christianity. At least one person remonstrated, assuring me that the LDS church is the whole forest, not just a tree. Another time I suggested that the LDS church was a branch on the tree of Christianity. That time, I was assured the LDS church is the whole tree.

Is the LDS a vital, living, and integral part of the worldwide church today (from its own identity of itself)? Or is it somehow separate and apart from the rest of the worldwide church today (from its own identity of itself)? In other words I am not as interested in what you think others think of you and your church in that regard, but what you think yourself? What is the relationship of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the worldwide church today? Thanks so much.
 

[3DOP]

51 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Today my wife and I went up to the states to get our mail, shop, etc. I almost always have some books waiting for me at our mail box. They are either books I am being asked to review, books someone sent me because they think I would be interested in them, or books I buy because I am interested in them.

Today, among others, I brought home "The Unique Christ in our Pluralist World," edited by Bruce J. Nicholls. I bought it used because it contains some article by theologians and philosophers whose writing I really like. This evening I turned the book over and read the back cover. How many of you read the back covers of books? At the very top in bold print was the following: "Understanding the uniqueness of Jesus Christ is arguably the most important and most urgent task facing the worldwide church today." I began to ponder on that, which led to the following question: Do most faithful members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consider themselves and their church a part or branch of the "worldwide church today?" It seems the LDS church has a complicated relationship with the larger Christian community known as "the worldwide church today." Is that correct? Years ago on this forum I made a comment that I thought the LDS church was one tree in the forest of Christianity. At least one person remonstrated, assuring me that the LDS church is the whole forest, not just a tree. Another time I suggested that the LDS church was a branch on the tree of Christianity. That time, I was assured the LDS church is the whole tree.

Is the LDS a vital, living, and integral part of the worldwide church today (from its own identity of itself)? Or is it somehow separate and apart from the rest of the worldwide church today (from its own identity of itself)? In other words I am not as interested in what you think others think of you and your church in that regard, but what you think yourself? What is the relationship of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the worldwide church today? Thanks so much.
 

Navidad, hi.

I think that the main thing you don't like about CoJCoLDS, might be the main thing I do like! I think that is why we have clashed a bit previously. I hope we understand each other better. I do not now say that love for Jesus outside of a perceived true church is without great value. But I still believe in a one true church. 

Blessings to you.

Rory

 

 

[let’s roll]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Do most faithful members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consider themselves and their church a part or branch of the "worldwide church today?"

I consider myself a fellow disciple with all those who believe Jesus is the Savior and who seek to respond to His invitation to follow Him.

I have no qualms with the Church being characterized as a branch of Christianity.

Because many LDS, in language and in thought, use “Church” almost solely in connection with the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS, I understand why they might balk at characterizing that church as part of “the worldwide church today.”  I think characterizing the Church as a denomination within modern Christianity would resonate with most LDS.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am not as interested in what you think others think of you and your church in that regard, but what you think yourself? What is the relationship of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the worldwide church today?

Speaking for myself, I suspect my take on this matter would exactly mirror the feelings of the earliest New Testament apostles in relation to what we now call Judaism.

[SwedishLDS]

Well, we see ourself as part of the restored church of Jesus Christ that the savior reestablished during his time on earth. The church of Jesus Christ and his priesthood has existed during different dispensations with Adam and Eve, Noah, Moses, and other prophets which has then lost its way which we refer to as apostasy. We believe that the church of Christ apostasised after/around the time the apostles of Christ died (remember they pretty much all were killed or exiled).

Even though all churches are different, all (as far as I know, and this is a bit simplified) other christian churches comes either through the catholic church which doesnt believe any apostasy happened but that the authority continued to be passed down. Orthodox and Protestants, meanwhile, are branches or spinoffs of the Catholic church which thought the catholic church had lost its way so they tried to reform the church the best they could. Thats why its called the reformation. These protestors founded their own churches in the end.

As members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, we make a different claim. We claim that we are not a reformed branch of christianity that tried to find their way back, but that we are a literally RESTORED (notice: not reformed) church of Jesus Christ with the same authority and organization as the original church and that Joseph Smith was given this authority by the original apostles Peter, James and John under the guidance of Jesus Christ. Therefore, we identity not as protestants, orthodox, nor as Catholics. We are in that sense, not a branch of catholic christianity even if we are christian. 

Consider this image, that depicts priesthood authority lineage for an average member. I (SwedishLDS) can personally trace my priesthood back to Jesus Christ as someone that holds the Melchezidek priesthood.

 

Cheers, and respect.

 

 

Edited April 6, 2022 by SwedishLDS

[SwedishLDS]

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Speaking for myself, I suspect my take on this matter would exactly mirror the feelings of the earliest New Testament apostles in relation to what we now call Judaism.

yeah, this. I am Judeo-christian, and a part of the original church of Jesu Christ as organized under the priesthood given to Adam and Eve. I am the seed of Abraham. One interesting thing here is that every single member of the church is part of one of the 12 tribes of Israel which all members can find out through a patriarchal blessing. I belong to the tribe of Ephraim for example.

I definitely feel solidarity with other Christians, but I believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the only church with Gods priesthood authority

Edited April 6, 2022 by SwedishLDS

[Calm]

2 hours ago, SwedishLDS said:

Even though all churches are different, all (as far as I know, and this is a bit simplified) other christian churches comes either through the catholic church which doesnt believe any apostasy happened but that the authority continued to be passed down. Orthodox and Protestants, meanwhile, are branches or spinoffs of the Catholic church

Orthodox claims primacy over Roman Catholic (the Undivided Church was Orthodox) as I understand it from what I have read. Roman Catholic claims the reverse.  The Catholics and Orthodox who post here will hopefully correct me if I have trusted the wrong sources. There are also Coptic Christians and others that claim to have their roots in 50AD and see themselves as the original church (“The Oriental Orthodox Churches are composed of six autocephalous churches: the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch, the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, and the Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church.^[1] Collectively, they consider themselves to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ in his Great Commission, and that its bishops are the successors of Christ's apostles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodox_Churches )

one pedigree chart:

http://crowedataflow.com/orthodox/churchpedigree.htm

another missing all the Oriental Orthodox faiths, but looks nice and tidy  

https://get.bible/blog/post/idea-32-one-bible-with-many-churches-denominations-and-sects

Edited April 6, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

This looks more complete, but won’t let me copy/paste.  And looks like a good site for overall religious information

https://www.thearda.com/about/

https://www.thearda.com/denoms/families/trees/familytree_christian.asp

Looks like they don’t know where to link in the Latter-day Saint movement though.

Edited April 6, 2022 by Calm

[Rain]

The way I understand the church teachings are that we are a tree in the forrest with these 2 ideas:

1. The trees are not all Christian, but other religious/spiritual beliefs as well.

2. Our church has all the fruits - lemons, apples, peaches, avocados, cherries etc.  Other trees have only some fruits -  only lemons or only peaches and apples. 

Edited April 6, 2022 by Rain

[SwedishLDS]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Orthodox claims primacy over Roman Catholic (the Undivided Church was Orthodox) as I understand it from what I have read. Roman Catholic claims the reverse.  The Catholics and Orthodox who post here will hopefully correct me if I have trusted the wrong sources. There are also Coptic Christians and others that claim to have their roots in 50AD and see themselves as the original church (“The Oriental Orthodox Churches are composed of six autocephalous churches: the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch, the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, and the Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church.^[1] Collectively, they consider themselves to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ in his Great Commission, and that its bishops are the successors of Christ's apostles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodox_Churches )

one pedigree chart:

http://crowedataflow.com/orthodox/churchpedigree.htm

another missing all the Oriental Orthodox faiths, but looks nice and tidy  

https://get.bible/blog/post/idea-32-one-bible-with-many-churches-denominations-and-sects

nice add on Calm. The great schism. You have all written interesting answers

But yeah, We believe in the great apostasy and don’t see ourselves as a reformed version of other churches. We are the only church with Gods priesthood authority. 

The continued pattern of apostasy and restoration throughout history is important, and isn’t limited to just the 0AD-2022AD christian timeline

Edited April 6, 2022 by SwedishLDS

[BlueDreams]

25 minutes ago, Rain said:

The way I understand the church teachings are that we are a tree in the forrest with these 2 ideas:

1. The trees are not all Christian, but other religious/spiritual beliefs as well.

2. Our church has all the fruits - lemons, apples, peaches, avocados, cherries etc.  Other trees have only some fruits -  only lemons or only peaches and apples. 

I'd probably add that some fruits are grown better on other trees and may be underdeveloped on ours....and there may still be more fruit to later be grafted on as our tree matures and expands in its capacity to take more. 

 

with luv,

BD

[CV75]

13 hours ago, Navidad said:

Today my wife and I went up to the states to get our mail, shop, etc. I almost always have some books waiting for me at our mail box. They are either books I am being asked to review, books someone sent me because they think I would be interested in them, or books I buy because I am interested in them.

Today, among others, I brought home "The Unique Christ in our Pluralist World," edited by Bruce J. Nicholls. I bought it used because it contains some article by theologians and philosophers whose writing I really like. This evening I turned the book over and read the back cover. How many of you read the back covers of books? At the very top in bold print was the following: "Understanding the uniqueness of Jesus Christ is arguably the most important and most urgent task facing the worldwide church today." I began to ponder on that, which led to the following question: Do most faithful members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consider themselves and their church a part or branch of the "worldwide church today?" It seems the LDS church has a complicated relationship with the larger Christian community known as "the worldwide church today." Is that correct? Years ago on this forum I made a comment that I thought the LDS church was one tree in the forest of Christianity. At least one person remonstrated, assuring me that the LDS church is the whole forest, not just a tree. Another time I suggested that the LDS church was a branch on the tree of Christianity. That time, I was assured the LDS church is the whole tree.

Is the LDS a vital, living, and integral part of the worldwide church today (from its own identity of itself)? Or is it somehow separate and apart from the rest of the worldwide church today (from its own identity of itself)? In other words I am not as interested in what you think others think of you and your church in that regard, but what you think yourself? What is the relationship of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the worldwide church today? Thanks so much.
 

As an organization, I think the relationship is like a voluntary cooperative acing on common principles of faith to bless the world. The individual organizations are loose subsets of the church of the Lamb of God (1 Nephi 14:10).

As Christians, also a subset of the church of the Lamb of God, I think the common relationship is one of brothers and sisters doing all we can in the name of Christ our Master, and behaving accordingly.

I think there are also non-Christians (individuals and groups) who belong to the church of the Lamb of God, who, by heeding the light of Christ within them, are prepared to meet the Lord when "haply they find Him." (Acts 1727).

[pogi]

13 hours ago, Navidad said:

Today my wife and I went up to the states to get our mail, shop, etc. I almost always have some books waiting for me at our mail box. They are either books I am being asked to review, books someone sent me because they think I would be interested in them, or books I buy because I am interested in them.

Today, among others, I brought home "The Unique Christ in our Pluralist World," edited by Bruce J. Nicholls. I bought it used because it contains some article by theologians and philosophers whose writing I really like. This evening I turned the book over and read the back cover. How many of you read the back covers of books? At the very top in bold print was the following: "Understanding the uniqueness of Jesus Christ is arguably the most important and most urgent task facing the worldwide church today." I began to ponder on that, which led to the following question: Do most faithful members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consider themselves and their church a part or branch of the "worldwide church today?" It seems the LDS church has a complicated relationship with the larger Christian community known as "the worldwide church today." Is that correct? Years ago on this forum I made a comment that I thought the LDS church was one tree in the forest of Christianity. At least one person remonstrated, assuring me that the LDS church is the whole forest, not just a tree. Another time I suggested that the LDS church was a branch on the tree of Christianity. That time, I was assured the LDS church is the whole tree.

Is the LDS a vital, living, and integral part of the worldwide church today (from its own identity of itself)? Or is it somehow separate and apart from the rest of the worldwide church today (from its own identity of itself)? In other words I am not as interested in what you think others think of you and your church in that regard, but what you think yourself? What is the relationship of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the worldwide church today? Thanks so much.
 

We definitely don't see ourselves as a part of a larger "church", but we do see ourselves as a part of a larger Christian community.  

[Rain]

51 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I'd probably add that some fruits are grown better on other trees and may be underdeveloped on ours....and there may still be more fruit to later be grafted on as our tree matures and expands in its capacity to take more. 

 

with luv,

BD

I would agree.

[BlueDreams]

Tied with both what calm and BB stated. When I think of putting us on as a "branch" of christianity my thought is, where would we be anyways? i think there's a reason we're hard to place on the branches of Christianity shown. For one we didn't "branch off" in the ways most did or continue to do so. For another our theology and practice is not easily placed comfortably within any major movement within christianity. There's overlap and some shared language and definitely shared beliefs to the point that I find a kinship in belief in Christ and shared christian principles/practices. But there's still important differences and claims to authority that matter and can't be pooh-poohed as simply quarks or insignificant both in our structure and outlook.

 

 I like pogi's distinction between church and community. I don't see us as so separate that I can't find form of communion, shared beliefs, and shared values in other faith communities. That sense may have more overlaps with christian traditions. But I've found that in other religious and philosophical stances as well and enjoy sharing in the goodness others find in their own walks with the divine at times as well. To me we have a specific address in the community of God's children...and it's good to share and experience our neighbors.

But church ties more to a vision of priesthood and purpose to our church's existence that can't be ignored as important. It's a main part of what we have to contribute to this large family, called humanity...both from ordinances we share to living and dead, as well as how we practice and interact with those around us. Do some of us take that to rigidly/proudly. Yes, but so it is with every good thing. Humans muddle. 

 

With luv,

BD 

[Navidad]

On 4/5/2022 at 9:02 PM, 3DOP said:

Navidad, hi.

I think that the main thing you don't like about CoJCoLDS, might be the main thing I do like! I think that is why we have clashed a bit previously. I hope we understand each other better. I do not now say that love for Jesus outside of a perceived true church is without great value. But I still believe in a one true church. 

Blessings to you.

Rory

 

 

Hi Rory: Thanks for the reply. I can't help but think sometimes we all talk past each other. I am not using the word "church" in the same way you are (I don't think). I am not talking about an institution which is more true or correct or blessed than any other institution. I am talking about, as the book was, the complete community of those who call Christ their savior and Lord. My question more relates to that - how we each feel we fit in, belong to, relate to the broad and large community of Christ which is the worldwide church today. The ekklesia  - the called out ones who honor His name regardless of specific institutional affiliation. I hope that helps. You are a Catholic Christian, methinks a rather conservative Christian when compared to a mainline Catholic. I am interested in how you see your church and yourself fitting into the broader Christian (followers of Christ) community on earth? Thanks. You believe in "one true church." OK. Now, how does that belief impact your and your group's position and relationship in the broader Christian community, for example in a shared understanding of the uniqueness of Christ as in the back cover example.

Edited April 7, 2022 by Navidad

[Navidad]

On 4/5/2022 at 10:30 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

Speaking for myself, I suspect my take on this matter would exactly mirror the feelings of the earliest New Testament apostles in relation to what we now call Judaism.

Thanks. I am not sure though, that I understand what you are saying in relation to the worldwide church today, especially in a topic such as this book cover discusses - a shared interest in the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. Are you part of the worldwide church today who the writers of this book believe have such an interest?

[Navidad]

On 4/6/2022 at 4:58 AM, SwedishLDS said:

Well, we see ourself as part of the restored church of Jesus Christ that the savior reestablished during his time on earth. The church of Jesus Christ and his priesthood has existed during different dispensations with Adam and Eve, Noah, Moses, and other prophets which has then lost its way which we refer to as apostasy. We believe that the church of Christ apostasised after/around the time the apostles of Christ died (remember they pretty much all were killed or exiled).

Even though all churches are different, all (as far as I know, and this is a bit simplified) other christian churches comes either through the catholic church which doesnt believe any apostasy happened but that the authority continued to be passed down. Orthodox and Protestants, meanwhile, are branches or spinoffs of the Catholic church which thought the catholic church had lost its way so they tried to reform the church the best they could. Thats why its called the reformation. These protestors founded their own churches in the end.

As members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, we make a different claim. We claim that we are not a reformed branch of christianity that tried to find their way back, but that we are a literally RESTORED (notice: not reformed) church of Jesus Christ with the same authority and organization as the original church and that Joseph Smith was given this authority by the original apostles Peter, James and John under the guidance of Jesus Christ. Therefore, we identity not as protestants, orthodox, nor as Catholics. We are in that sense, not a branch of catholic christianity even if we are christian. 

Consider this image, that depicts priesthood authority lineage for an average member. I (SwedishLDS) can personally trace my priesthood back to Jesus Christ as someone that holds the Melchezidek priesthood.

 

Cheers, and respect.

 

 

Great answer but to a question I didn't ask. My question is what is your relationship individually and as a church to the worldwide community (ekklesia) church today? The subject of the back cover was a shared interest in the uniqueness of Christ. If you share that interest, how would you go about discussing that interest with other Christians who are part of the worldwide community of Christ (ekklesia) today?

[Navidad]

On 4/6/2022 at 7:20 AM, Calm said:

This looks more complete, but won’t let me copy/paste.  And looks like a good site for overall religious information

https://www.thearda.com/about/

https://www.thearda.com/denoms/families/trees/familytree_christian.asp

Looks like they don’t know where to link in the Latter-day Saint movement though.

Hi Calm. I really appreciate your work on these replies. I will comment a bit more after I read the other replies. I have been away from the computer for a few days, so I am a bit behind. thanks.

[Navidad]

On 4/6/2022 at 10:08 AM, BlueDreams said:

Humans muddle.

This is very true! Well said!

[MiserereNobis]

On 4/6/2022 at 7:11 AM, Calm said:

Orthodox claims primacy over Roman Catholic (the Undivided Church was Orthodox) as I understand it from what I have read. Roman Catholic claims the reverse.  The Catholics and Orthodox who post here will hopefully correct me if I have trusted the wrong sources. There are also Coptic Christians and others that claim to have their roots in 50AD and see themselves as the original church (“The Oriental Orthodox Churches are composed of six autocephalous churches: the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch, the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, and the Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church.^[1] Collectively, they consider themselves to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ in his Great Commission, and that its bishops are the successors of Christ's apostles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodox_Churches )

one pedigree chart:

http://crowedataflow.com/orthodox/churchpedigree.htm

another missing all the Oriental Orthodox faiths, but looks nice and tidy  

https://get.bible/blog/post/idea-32-one-bible-with-many-churches-denominations-and-sects

Another way to see the break-offs from the Catholic Church is looking at which groups accept ecumenical councils. Here's a cut-and-paste from wikipedia:

Quote

The Church of the East (accused by others of adhering to Nestorianism) accepts as ecumenical the first two councils. Oriental Orthodox Churches accept the first three.^[4]

Both the Eastern Orthodox Church and Catholic Church recognize as ecumenical the first seven councils, held from the 4th to the 9th centuries. While some Eastern Orthodox accept one later council as ecumenical (which was later repudiated by the Catholic Church), the Catholic Church continues to hold general councils of the bishops in full communion with the Pope, reckoning them as ecumenical. In all, the Catholic Church recognizes twenty-one councils as ecumenical. 

The first four ecumenical councils are recognized by some Lutheran Churches, Anglican Communion and Reformed Churches—though they are "considered subordinate to Scripture".^[5] Lutheran Churches which are a part of the Lutheran World Federationrecognize the first seven Ecumenical Councils as "exercises of apostolic authority" and recognizes their decisions as authoritative.^[6]

 

[Navidad]

I appreciate everyones' replies to my original post. We each respond through our own filters. That is fine because on a forum like this, there are no correct or incorrect filters, neither are there true or false filters. Each filter is our own truth.  As such it represents that through which we view the world, in this case, the world-wide body or bride of Christ today. My filter says that world-wide body or bride of Christ (ekklesia) is made of individuals, not groups. It has to be. Christ didn't die for groups, organization, or institutions. He died for individuals and then created a community made up of individuals. Each disciple or apostle was not give his or her own individual group.

Granted, individuals voluntarily or via coercion may then join up with groups within the greater whole. They often then more relate to their own group than the whole. I would relate it to our existence as humans. We are all part of humanity. That is our Community. We then break into our individual groups (racially, ethnically, politically, tall-short, left-handed) and soon our relationship to humanity is forgotten, overlooked, or deliberately ignored. I was a superintendent of a school district. The district was our Community. But, as with humanity we soon broke down into smaller groups. The central office, if a large district-the areas or regions, the schools, the grade levels, the classrooms, the food department, maintenance, finance, the board, and on and on. We then debate over resources, roles, and relationships. Which truly (see the root word truth in there) impacts education? Who, or which is the true educator? I would suggest the answer is "yes" instead of a specific group. A district cannot exist without its disparate parts. Neither can Christianity because it is first and foremost a community of believers, not a community of self-selected groups.

I have said a number of times in my life and in this forum that I am first and foremost religiously a Christian - part of the "worldwide church today." Perhaps that should be a church with a capital C. I am secondly an Evangelical, the first sub-group with which I identify religiously. Third and least important of all I am a Mennonite. The first (Christian) is the only of the three that is salvific, bringing me eternal life, and some day, glorification (exaltation). Right now I can delve into sanctification, the growth in spirituality. Christ's atonement is the common salvific component of Christianity. All the rest are appendages! Perhaps a counterpart for the LDS church member it could be Christian, Restored Church (there are many of those), COJCOLDS. For the Catholic it could be Christian, Original Church, Coptic. For someone else it could be Christian, Mainline, Episcopalian, and on and on. In that paradigm the unifying identity and filter is Christian. The other levels are secondary and tertiary. Equal and shared Christianity, derived from Christ is what we celebrate

I am trying to figure out what it is that makes the secondary and tertiary more important than the primary? I don't know if it is filter, doctrine, dogma, or the basic human tendency to divide into subgroups and then ranks all others as "less than." The minute the words "only," "true," "complete," "all," are used about our group, all else are by definition, less than. I can't intellectually see it as anything else. Then rankism takes over and whenever rankism takes over bad things happen in the minds, hearts, or souls of the "less than." A religious racism sets in. Our group has it "all." Others have some, but bless their hearts, they need to come to us so we can add to what they have. After all, because sshh - don't say this too loud, they might hear us, we do know they are or have less than us! Our filters teach us that, don't they? That was a nice prayer, but I wish they wouldn't let non-members pray! I know they can participate in the sacrament, but we all know they are just pretending! And on and on when we focus on the secondary and tertiary instead of the completeness of the primary.

I believe we, each one of us as Christians have two filters we have to work through to honor the work of Christ in the life of other Christians. First, the dark glass filter of I Cor. 13:12. We aren't at the "then" of that verse yet. There is much we don't know and understand. Our choice then is to faith our own personal beliefs. I think we must do that faithing with great "provisional certitude" to quote the philosopher-theologian Miroslav Volf. The second is the clay jar filter of II Cor. 4:7 which makes clear that the treasure we each share as Christians is from God, not from us (or our group). I live in a village famous for its clay jars (pottery/ceramics), I have seen hundreds break over the years. They are beautiful but easily broken. So it is with our own finite and limited ability to form and hold truth. We see through a dark glass and we are at best clay jars which hold our truths.

OK.....too wordy again. Sorry. I would simply end with a personal truth statement that the worldwide church today is not a gathering of disparate faith communities. It is a collective community of individuals who call Jesus Christ their Lord and Savior, depending on his shed blood to cover the door posts of our individual lives. To steal a phrase, "I say that in His name."

[SwedishLDS]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Christ's atonement is the common salvific component of Christianity. All the rest are appendages!

Amen. It all is about him and his sacrifice and example. I try to mirror the church’s teachings quite a bit so if it seems official when I give answers that might be why.

for me. I’m a Christian. I relate to and are very grateful for my fellow christians and I will fight and stand beside them any day. I cherish the bible and its many stories of jesus christ. 

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

The subject of the back cover was a shared interest in the uniqueness of Christ. If you share that interest, how would you go about discussing that interest with other Christians who are part of the worldwide community of Christ (ekklesia) today?

I think focusing on Jesus Christ is the key. Sharing our faith in him and loving them. Understanding his character is key.

 

Edited April 7, 2022 by SwedishLDS

[3DOP]

On 4/7/2022 at 12:21 PM, Navidad said:

Hi Rory: Thanks for the reply. I can't help but think sometimes we all talk past each other. I am not using the word "church" in the same way you are (I don't think). I am not talking about an institution which is more true or correct or blessed than any other institution. I am talking about, as the book was, the complete community of those who call Christ their savior and Lord. My question more relates to that - how we each feel we fit in, belong to, relate to the broad and large community of Christ which is the worldwide church today. The ekklesia  - the called out ones who honor His name regardless of specific institutional affiliation. I hope that helps. You are a Catholic Christian, methinks a rather conservative Christian when compared to a mainline Catholic. I am interested in how you see your church and yourself fitting into the broader Christian (followers of Christ) community on earth? Thanks. You believe in "one true church." OK. Now, how does that belief impact your and your group's position and relationship in the broader Christian community, for example in a shared understanding of the uniqueness of Christ as in the back cover example.

Navidad, good to hear back from you.

I appreciate your gentle reply and your probing question. I hope I can clarify.

Occasionally, I refer to a separated (non-Catholic) brother or sister in Christ as a "good Catholic". I also believe in "the ekklesia - the called out ones who honor His name regardless of specific institutional affiliation". I certainly believe that there are many who do not identify themselves as Catholic who may be saved. Yet, they will be saved because they were "Catholic". The name of this ekklesia is the Catholic Church. The marks of Christ's church are identifiable and verifiable. It is One (not plural), Holy (sanctifies those who faithfully practice her teachings), Apostolic (can plausibly claim to have ministers who have been ordained by ministers who extend back to the very Apostles), and Catholic (universal). There is no salvation outside this Church. However, and this is important, If any of my non-Catholic Christian friends or family die, unaffiliated visibly with the Catholic Church, I may still hope that they were "good Catholics" unknowingly, through no fault of their own, invisibly attached to the Catholic Church.

I also read your latest "wordy" post with interest. I understand the frustration of feeling a lack of respect, or "rankism" as I think you called it from LDS, who will baptize you in the afterlife, or Catholics who might hope for your salvation, not as a Mennonite, but as an "invisible Catholic". I earnestly hope and pray that I do not hold myself to be superior, because in His mercy, I believe God has shown me the truth of the Catholic faith. To think that way would be to seriously overestimate one's position before God as a Catholic. God have mercy, and preserve us from such folly.

Obviously, the Catholics that are visibly affiliated with the Church should believe that our good and loving Father operates outside the Sacraments to bring those into the fold who love Him, and His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. However, it would be to seriously underestimate the privilege which God has given to visible Catholics, of having access to the life-giving Sacraments of the visible Church, to think it is a matter of irrelevance which community of Christians to which one belongs. It is impossible not to have more hope for the salvation of those attached to the visible Church, than to those who are not for the time being. Likewise, it is impossible not to have more hope for those who happily profess to be Christians, than for those in the world who do not. But even for those who do not name Christ, we may hope that by "the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world", that all people of good will, by whatever light they have received, may be unknowingly Christian, and unknowingly Catholic.

All men are our neighbors, and we must treat all of them with the same love and mercy which we have received, even those who seem for now to be our enemies, as potential members of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church. We will all recall how Jesus promised that where two or more are gathered His name, there He is in the midst of them. If because of Jesus, we love our neighbor better, it is Him doing the work. It is not us. It is Him. This is part of the mystery of how Christ is really present among any two who are gathered "in His name". As a visible Catholic, I think that this experience happens outside the visible Catholic Church. It gives one joy, but it also gives pain because we are divided. Love always seeks unity with the beloved. Our Saviour prayed on the night before He suffered, that we who believe on Him would be one, even as He and the Father are One. Visible Catholics have differences of opinion about the best policy for trying to help all Christians worship together.

If by word or action, visible Catholics alienate any fellow Christian, I am very sorry. But there are many reasons why for instance, I hold that visible Catholics should not worship jointly in hybrid ceremonies which place Catholic liturgy on an equal footing with non-Catholic worship. I am aware of course, that in recent years this is precisely what many in the Church hierarchy have been doing, even though it has been explicitly condemned by popes of the past. In my opinion, this is not the best policy "for trying to help all Christians worship together". I think that while apparently showing respect, to Lutherans, Anglicans, and others with whom we have shared joint worship, it "alienates" members of these groups in the strict sense of the word. I fear that it pushes them farther away from seeing any need to become visibly Catholic. But I trust that those who do support "joint worship" have the same motive as I do, when I transparently admit that it is better to be visibly Catholic than not. Assuredly, all the saved will be in eternity intimately one, as are Christ and the Father in heaven. But we do what we can to see that Christ's prayer, which will certainly be answered, is fulfilled more and more on earth, as it is in heaven. 

It seems to me like you are satisfied with the way you believe that God has distributed His gifts and has organized His people. I would not be surprised to discover that you are what I have labelled for the sake of this thread an "invisible Catholic" and love God and your neighbor better than many visible Catholics. But the big difference between us might be that visible Catholics should never be satisfied with mere invisible Catholicism. We cannot abandon the desire for a truly visible unity, "the city on a mountain that cannot be hid", more easily identifiable to souls in search of Christ's rest. Visible Catholics should sense a duty to try as best we can to lovingly lead our very near neighbors, the invisible Catholics, to their true and visible family, the Catholic Church, for the glory of God, the good of their souls, and for the salvation of all.

Simply put, I think Christ's prayer in John 17 implies at minimum, that we all should go to the same church together, with an holy intimacy that transcends distance and time, with what the Catholic Church calls, "the communion of saints". I began a quest for visible unity before I became visibly Catholic. The church which I pastored reached out to other churches in our area in an attempt to promote joint activity. I was part of one church merger. I still think about that with satisfaction. But ultimately, I came to the place where I could not imagine many communities of believers where visible unity is, or could be a reality, on a worldwide, universal basis. One was the Catholic Church. Another was the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In no small part, this is what led me to study those two religious institutions and to finally unite myself visibly with the Catholic Church. LDS claims against any non-Catholic institution, combined with the desire to see a plausible fulfillment of Christ's prayer for visible unity among all of His disciples, helped my journey Romeward.    

With wordy regards, your friend in Christ,

Rory             

         

[BlueDreams]

On 4/7/2022 at 12:48 PM, Navidad said:

I am trying to figure out what it is that makes the secondary and tertiary more important than the primary? I don't know if it is filter, doctrine, dogma, or the basic human tendency to divide into subgroups and then ranks all others as "less than." The minute the words "only," "true," "complete," "all," are used about our group, all else are by definition, less than. I can't intellectually see it as anything else. Then rankism takes over and whenever rankism takes over bad things happen in the minds, hearts, or souls of the "less than." A religious racism sets in. Our group has it "all." Others have some, but bless their hearts, they need to come to us so we can add to what they have. After all, because sshh - don't say this too loud, they might hear us, we do know they are or have less than us! Our filters teach us that, don't they? That was a nice prayer, but I wish they wouldn't let non-members pray! I know they can participate in the sacrament, but we all know they are just pretending! And on and on when we focus on the secondary and tertiary instead of the completeness of the primary.

personally my list of ID’s differs from the one’s you just gave. My first is a child of God…a label all mankind innately has and will rarely fully reject. It’s also salvific in my faith’s eschatology. Almost every person born on this earth will inherit a place of glory with God. The exceptions being the very very few who completely reject God knowingly. My secondary is being a latter day-Saint. Just as the first is salvific, the second has important/exalting ordinances that are extremely important and endowed by God. These ordinances will one day be offered to all, living or dead. We’re starting, but by no means will complete this work in our restoration era. Ultimately, it won’t be called the “church of Jesus Christ of of LAtter-day saints” because the saints will not be those in the latter days or those of my specific address of the children of God. It will be the church of the firstborn and include all those willing to enter the order of God and have lived up to the light and knowledge they had here on earth to a fullness that leaves them able/open to receive more. In or out of the current LDS church. Or as a number of people described it during GC, they’re willing to enter the “covenant path.” Not simply any form of promise before god (as in individualized covenants), but one of order…one that ultimately orders us in a way that prepares and endows us as zion with all that is God through Christ. For me, hopping to another church, is not simply a choice of a secondary, non-salvific identity…it is losing out on sacred ordering in Christ. Some that doesn’t have a solid equivalent in most other churches…and arguably none/even fewer that is easily accessible to all members to enter said holy orders. I’m not exactly sure where I put Christian on my list of identities. I think it’s probably similar to the distinction of beliefs in Christ from a Muslim to a Christian in that both hold great esteem of Christ, but there’s a distinction in how they honor and take in Christ and His role. That difference Carries importance. But there is a stronger starting point of similarity in that than say comparing this distinction to other communities that do not hold an overt belief in Christ. In short it’s holding many similar truths, but having a number of additional beliefs that are very important. It’s a connecting point with other children of God. It’s something good. And good is good.

i think part of the problem in understanding this is that you keep juxtaposing your perspectives onto other systems of belief and views. Which will always lead to a head scratch. Note, I think it’s super common and easy to do. I know I likely do it at times. Though I’ve found ways that work for me to Reorient…and my life experiences have helped me fairly easily perspective take and jump into another’s perspective, even if it doesn’t make “sense” within my worldview. In fact not making sense usually is a key indicator I’m missing something and juxtaposing myself too much onto a situation or belief. It’s reflexive to me at this point. the other is that you’re comparing the worst potential aspects of another view with the best in your own. People generally don’t subscribe to a view for the potential pitfalls. 

For example my perspective doesn’t meant that I then look down on or view as “pretend” other people’s religious practices. (The near universal critique of Wilcox’s word here would indicate most don’t see it that way). I don’t see having the secondary identity as also fundamentally important/salvific as inherently leading to a belief of superiority. It can. It does at times…as is a weakness when anyone is given a specific role. But there are several doctrinal/scriptural warnings and safe guards to help indicate that it shouldn’t…that doing so is in error and out of line with God. To me, it’s like assuming that salt equals a meal. Of course it doesn’t. You just eat pure salt and not only will that be pretty gross and too much can get toxic. But salt is still very important to the overall composition of food and taste. We will not have a wholeness without every person who is striving to follow goodness, truth, and ultimately God. But we also hold an important piece of the recipe that isn’t removable to the eternal recipe per se. 

 

with luv, 

Bd

 

Edited April 10, 2022 by BlueDreams