The Worldwide Church and LDS Identity

[Saint Bonaventure]

On 4/6/2022 at 6:58 AM, 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 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.

I'll try to clarify a little. There's so much here, and I wrote a long post that I accidentally deleted.

Alas....

Both the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches see one another as having a shared heritage going all the way back to the New Testament. All of the Creedal Christian Churches, that is, those who share the Four Marks of "One, holy, catholic, and apostolic" have a certain shared identity. This includes the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican, Reformed, and a few other Churches (Assyrian?). 

The term "Catholic Church" goes back to St. Ignatius of Antioch in the early 2nd century, and the term "catholic" was generally applied to all of the city churches following the Council of Nicea.

The division between Eastern and Western Christianity happened slowly, over centuries, and was intertwined with the division of the Roman Empire into Eastern and Western portions. However well intentioned, it's a mistake to think of Christianity as the "Orthodox Church" until the schism of 1054, and as the "Roman Catholic" and "Eastern Orthodox Church" after 1054 and until the Protestant Churches are on the scene. 

Also, "Roman Catholic Church" is not the preferred term. It's not exactly wrong, but if one is trying to distinguish the Church of 1.2 billion people from the other 23 Catholic Churches that are also in union with the Pope, "Latin Church" is preferred. "Catholic" applies to all 24 Churches, and you might notice that the Catholic Churches in the U.S. call themselves "Catholic Churches" and not "Roman Catholic Churches." Sometimes the "Roman" part has been used as an ethnic slur, mostly by people who watch too many mafia movies and read Dan Brown books. Other times it's just referenced as a way to try and de-emphasize the Catholic identity. This seems to be the purpose behind the usual Protestant inclusion of "Roman," although people may not be aware that they are doing it.

This article might help: 

Did you Know that there are 24 Individual Catholic Churches in union with Rome? (catholic365.com)

 

Edited April 10, 2022 by Saint Bonaventure

[Scott Lloyd]

On 4/5/2022 at 7:58 PM, 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.
 

For my part, I have always believed what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches about itself, that it is a divine restoration of the Church that Christ founded after that original Church had become corrupted over time (a “falling away” or general apostasy) by the introduction of unauthorized doctrines and practices. 
 

It is thus incorrect to regard the restored Church as a “branch” of a broader group or movement. 

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

For my part, I have always believed what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches about itself, that it is a divine restoration of the Church that Christ founded after that original Church had become corrupted over time (a “falling away” or general apostasy) by the introduction of unauthorized doctrines and practices. 
 

It is thus incorrect to regard the restored Church as a “branch” of a broader group or movement. 

Well said Scott. Not that I can adhere to it now as a Catholic, but I very much appreciate it at as one who was formerly trying to believe that the Catholic Church had become corrupted, and could be replaced without a thorough and authoritative restoration. This is what I was referring to when I said to Navidad above about how LDS studies moved me away from any kind of unrestored, non-Catholic Christianity: "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." 

This is why for the entire time I have been here, since 2004, the first question of import to me has been that of "a falling away, or general apostasy". It seems hard to break away from Rome, and an established episcopate in an unbroken chain from the Apostles, to anybody less than Joseph Smith who not surprisingly, rejects the teachings of the Council of Nicea, with its 300 plus Catholic bishops, and proposes ideas that are radically different from what "apostate Christianity" taught. Protestantism is still too Roman! It breaks away, but keeps too much. For me, it became either Rome, or Restoration. I also visited Islam as having Restorationist claims.

Ultimately, I lean on the authority of the Levitical priests in our Lord's public life, who despite all the degradation and depravity described by the Prophets through the centuries after Moses, retained their priestly authority even as the high priest who sat on the "chair of Moses", whose authority our Lord Jesus recognized, sought to destroy the Son of God. There are a lot of "unauthorized doctrines and practices" in the Old Testament that never resulted in the loss of priestly authority. Without both Testaments, which seem to highlight the very worst of the behaviors and beliefs prevalent among the priests of the children of promise, while still retaining God's authority, I might be more susceptible to claims of apostasy in the early years of the New Testament Church. Plato seems way too mild to me in comparison.

With respect,

3DOP   

 

Edited April 10, 2022 by 3DOP

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

For my part, I have always believed what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches about itself, that it is a divine restoration of the Church that Christ founded after that original Church had become corrupted over time (a “falling away” or general apostasy) by the introduction of unauthorized doctrines and practices. 
 

It is thus incorrect to regard the restored Church as a “branch” of a broader group or movement. 

Thanks Scott. Ok, if it is incorrect to regard the restored Church as a "branch" of a broader group or movement, then how does it relate to the worldwide church today? Certainly a worldwide church exists. Just as certainly the COJCOLDS exists. It seems to me they don't simply co-exist? Someone suggested there are 24 individual churches "in union" with Rome. How is the COJCOLDS in union with the rest of Christianity, or is there no way? Is there a difference in how the individuals within each entity relate? Certainly understanding the unique nature of Jesus Christ is of interest to Christianity world-wide. I certainly have books by LDS scholars on the subject. Your answer is helpful, but it tells me what isn't. It would be helpful if you could opine on what is the relationship? I would guess you have written on that somewhere in your career. Thanks so much.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Well said Scott. Not that I can adhere to it now as a Catholic, but I very much appreciate it at as one who was formerly trying to believe that the Catholic Church had become corrupted, and could be replaced without a thorough and authoritative restoration. This is what I was referring to when I said to Navidad above about how LDS studies moved me away from any kind of unrestored, non-Catholic Christianity: "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." 

This is why for the entire time I have been here, since 2004, the first question of import to me has been that of "a falling away, or general apostasy". It seems hard to break away from Rome, and an established episcopate in an unbroken chain from the Apostles, to anybody less than Joseph Smith who not surprisingly, rejects the teachings of the Council of Nicea, with its 300 plus Catholic bishops, and proposes ideas that are radically different from what "apostate Christianity" taught. Protestantism is still too Roman! It breaks away, but keeps too much. For me, it became either Rome, or Restoration. I also visited Islam as having Restorationist claims.

Ultimately, I lean on the authority of the Levitical priests in our Lord's public life, who despite all the degradation and depravity described by the Prophets through the centuries after Moses, retained their priestly authority even as the high priest who sat on the "chair of Moses", whose authority our Lord Jesus recognized, sought to destroy the Son of God. There are a lot of "unauthorized doctrines and practices" in the Old Testament that never resulted in the loss of priestly authority. Without both Testaments, which seem to highlight the very worst of the behaviors and beliefs prevalent among the priests of the children of promise, while still retaining God's authority, I might be more susceptible to claims of apostasy in the early years of the New Testament Church. Plato seems way too mild to me in comparison.

With respect,

3DOP   

 

Thanks my friend. So would you also reject the idea that the Catholic Church is part of the world-wide church today? Or is it the concept of it being a "branch" that is the sticking point? Since the very early 1500s the Anabaptist movement as exemplified today in the Mennonites, Amish, and Brethren groups has rejected a view of itself as being a "branch" of the reformation. It has a much stronger sense of self as an early restorationist group. Certainly there are any number of 19th century American groups that consider themselves restorational. The LDS church has no unique hold on that claim.

I am not sure I understand if you and @Scott Lloyd are suggesting there is no such thing as a world-wide church today, or if simply you and others are suggesting that it exists, but that the COJCOLDS and the Catholic church are not part of it? Or they are a part, but not a branch of it? Is it the word "branch" that is the sticking point? Or you are each individually and separately the essence of the world-wide church today, and all the rest of us are ?????? What?

Do we simply come together occasionally to discuss our varying beliefs on such topics as "the unique nature of Christ," then go our separate ways separately trying to "convert" each other to our unique expression of Christianity? I find it a very interesting topic. For example I am not sure that you and I, or Scott and I don't have more in common than do you and our local village priest, or @Scott Lloyd and my Lebaron friends down the road. I try, but I can't get my head around how we are not, each of us a part of the great historical and present-existing Christian community world-wide? It reminds me of my Fundamentalist friends in a way. Ask them how they relate to the rest of Christianity, and they will tell you what they are not, and what they are against. It is hard to figure out how they indeed are related.  Thanks so much for your reply.

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

I find it a very interesting topic.

Demonstrably so. I've been impressed at how many different ways you've found (so far) to ask the exact same question, knowing in advance that we will never be able to give you the answer that you require unless we convert to your way of thinking. You are a persistent missionary!

Edited April 11, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[3DOP]

7 hours ago, Navidad said:

Thanks my friend. So would you also reject the idea that the Catholic Church is part of the world-wide church today? Or is it the concept of it being a "branch" that is the sticking point? Since the very early 1500s the Anabaptist movement as exemplified today in the Mennonites, Amish, and Brethren groups has rejected a view of itself as being a "branch" of the reformation. It has a much stronger sense of self as an early restorationist group. Certainly there are any number of 19th century American groups that consider themselves restorational. The LDS church has no unique hold on that claim.

I am not sure I understand if you and @Scott Lloyd are suggesting there is no such thing as a world-wide church today, or if simply you and others are suggesting that it exists, but that the COJCOLDS and the Catholic church are not part of it? Or they are a part, but not a branch of it? Is it the word "branch" that is the sticking point? Or you are each individually and separately the essence of the world-wide church today, and all the rest of us are ?????? What?

Do we simply come together occasionally to discuss our varying beliefs on such topics as "the unique nature of Christ," then go our separate ways separately trying to "convert" each other to our unique expression of Christianity? I find it a very interesting topic. For example I am not sure that you and I, or Scott and I don't have more in common than do you and our local village priest, or @Scott Lloyd and my Lebaron friends down the road. I try, but I can't get my head around how we are not, each of us a part of the great historical and present-existing Christian community world-wide? It reminds me of my Fundamentalist friends in a way. Ask them how they relate to the rest of Christianity, and they will tell you what they are not, and what they are against. It is hard to figure out how they indeed are related.  Thanks so much for your reply.

It is late on Sunday night, and this old man has a 50 hour work week ahead...no wait...praise God...we have off Good Friday with pay! May we continue our discussion later? I have some thoughts. God bless.

3DOP

[Navidad]

12 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Demonstrably so. I've been impressed at how many different ways you've found (so far) to ask the exact same question, knowing in advance that we will never be able to give you the answer that you require unless we convert to your way of thinking. You are a persistent missionary!

Thanks for that perspective. I won't try and dissuade you of your point of view about my questions. I would simply clarify that 1. In my mind (at least) I ask the same questions over and over when I still don't understand the answer. I know that has been a source of frustration for several of you. If I am still asking the same questions in different ways, that basically means I still don't have a cogent and clear understanding of the answers. I have a deep desire to know and understand. There is much about the place of the LDS church in the world (from its own perspective) that I still don't understand. Frankly, I am not sure there is a cogent position within the church about the disparity between its ideal and its phenomenological place in the world of faith.

The second reason I ask the same questions is because I mirror on this forum the questions I am asked on a regular basis (at least monthly - absent covid). I want to be as accurate as possible in the answers I give. I meet or talk weekly with local LDS leaders here in our area to ascertain their perspective on the LDS church here in Mexico, in the north, in politics, in history, and in the search for souls here in Mexico. I lecture at least twice a month online or somewhere on the religious history of Mexico. There is never a time in those zoom or in-person conferences that I am not asked about the LDS and the Mennonites here in Mexico. The topics and subjects cover both history, doctrine, and place in the culture. The only other group that compares in questions from Mexican graduate students is about Pentecostals. The role of the Anglo invasions of Mexico (both hard and soft) are today, as if they happened yesterday. In fact with the loss of Catholic identity in this country (down to 73% in published sources), they are viewed as still happening. 

It has been forty-five years since I have had an interest in converting anyone to anything. My interest is in understanding so I can communicate, both in writing and in speaking. It may upset you that I am the one providing answers about your faith, but such is my life. There are Mennonites here who don't believe I should be teaching about their faith. I am not "old order" enough. The Pentecostals are happy however, for anyone they trust to get out the word about their complex and unique position in Christianity. Pentecostalism on the borderlands is a huge topic right now. All three groups are in some ways liminal, but omnipresent in Mexican society.

Two weeks ago I had a long discussion with an LDS Mission President, a week before that with former temple presidents from our area. I regularly interact with the retired LDS federal senator who is now a mission president. He is a really good friend. I seek the counsel of LDS, Mennonite, and Pentecostal scholars at every chance. It is at the core of my dissertation on the history and impact of the 1930s second cristiada here in Mexico's north where "Protestants" as understood as including Mormons, Mennonites, and Pentecostals is central. My series on Searching for the Soul of Mexico has much to do with the questions I ask.

Who else can I ask but you all and my other friends in the three communities? I belong or have belonged to Mormon (2), Mennonite, Catholic, non-denominational, and Pentecostal history societies. I want to get it right. When all I get as answers to my questions are references from general conference talks, the Saints history, the Joseph Smith Papers, etc. they are from folks who don't realize how many times I have already poured through all of them, each time leaving with the same questions. I do have tangents and differences in my questions, but they reflect what I am thinking about based on questions I receive, and also questions that remain unanswered in my own mind. And some, like trying to understand the chronology and specifics of our condition and events in sequence after death or the embodiment of the Father are of my own interest. The LDS perspective on its role in the broader Christian community is of paramount interest to me right now.

I hope this isn't offensive, but I will take the risk. . . there is a certain amount of parroting among both Mennonites and Mormons when they are asked questions (in my experience, inclusive of this board). Once, on a return trip from a two week engagement in East Africa, I brought home a wonderful African gray. For more than thirty years he or she (we never knew the biological sex) entertained us with mimicry. I never, however in all those years had a serious dialogue with Solomon. It does seem to me there is a kind of "learned mimicry" within both the LDS and the Mennonite community. Now I probably have blown it, but I won't delete it. I said it. I think it. So I need to have the courage to own it.

Sure I have my own spiritual curiosity about it all as well. No question about it. I am insatiably intellectually and spiritually curious about the history and theology of the Salafists in Islam, the fundamentalists in both the Mormon world and those in the non-LDS Christian world. I just don't ask about them on this forum. I perseverate about them elsewhere. Take care and thanks for interacting with me even when you doubt my rationale for my questions. I appreciate that. I tend not to let go of something that I don't understand. I stipulate to that. I often wish I could get together with some of you on a regular basis over breakfast like I do with LDS, Pentecostal, and Mennonite folks here. I would greatly appreciate that.

My motto in my work on the religious history of Mexico is to do no harm to any group and to be as accurate as possible when asked questions about faiths that are not my own. You might be surprised at the questions that come out of graduate students' minds that I have to answer in Q&A sessions. Right now the LDS and Mennonites have taken a back seat to Pentecostal questions. The Pentecostal growth in Mexico since the 1920s is really quite astounding. I wouldn't be surprised if the first non-Catholic president of Mexico is a Pentecostal (hopefully not a repeat of the Guatemala situation). Perhaps not in my life, but certainly in that of my son. I don't ever see a Mennonite or LDS president; both groups are too liminal here.

Thanks again for your kindness on the board, especially in the face of what must be your frustration with my questions. Perhaps I need to be better in not asking them in the context of my own beliefs. That is usually my starting point because it helps me frame the question. It is certainly not missiological in its intent. I live on a river that we watch flow every evening. The bird population is enormous, wonderful, and quite migratory. I believe religious movements between groups within the same broad community are migratory as opposed to conversion. Year after year we see the same birds migrating - kind of like the Whitmer family did, time after time. Well, there I go again, sharing my beliefs. Sorry.

[Nofear]

While I don't plan on engaging this particular thread, it did remind me of this cartoon:

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, Navidad said:

20 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

Thanks for that perspective. I won't try and dissuade you of your point of view about my questions. I would simply clarify that 1. In my mind (at least) I ask the same questions over and over when I still don't understand the answer.

If I may Navidad, I think you’re not grasping the responses because they’re not consistent with your preconceived paradigm. It’s as though you believe repetitive questioning will alter the response; usually, it won’t. 
 

I occasionally encountered editors like that in the course of my career. The editor would send a reporter out on assignment and would experience considerable dissonance when the reporter came back with a story that was unlike what the editor had anticipated. It was as if the editor had pre-written the story himself in his own mind and would badger the reporter if the story did not match his mental preconception. 
 

[Stargazer]

On 4/6/2022 at 2:58 AM, Navidad said:

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.

This made me burst out laughing!

I hope it wasn't me who wrote that!  Sometimes I forget what I write and am amazed when stumbling back over it again.

Everyone wants to rule the world, just like every single one of us has an opinion. My opinion is that yes, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a part of the worldwide community of Christ, in the sense of the writer of the back cover of your book. It so happens that (in my opinion) the CoJCoLDS is the only one with full divine authority, and the one with the most complete and correct understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but as important as that is (to me, at least), we're all Christians, and we are all in this together.

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, Nofear said:

While I don't plan on engaging this particular thread, it did remind me of this cartoon:

That made me laugh, not only because of the obvious humor, but also because it is basically what my Dad did when I asked his permission to be baptized into the the LDS church. He drew out a (very generalized) chart of descent, in order to make sure that I was aware that there were all these offshoots in religion, and they were ALL wrong, ALL man-made. I thanked him for his perspective and then he signed the permission slip. He was a devout agnostic.

[Stargazer]

29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If I may Navidad, I think you’re not grasping the responses because they’re not consistent with your preconceived paradigm. It’s as though you believe repetitive questioning will alter the response; usually, it won’t. 
 

I occasionally encountered editors like that in the course of my career. The editor would send a reporter out on assignment and would experience considerable dissonance when the reporter came back with a story that was unlike what the editor had anticipated. It was as if the editor had pre-written the story himself in his own mind and would badger the reporter if the story did not match his mental preconception. 
 

Scott, I don't think he's trying to get altered responses. My observation after all this time is that he does this trying to gain the greatest understanding that he can. He's not badgering us. He's asking questions in different ways in order to learn more. 

Now, you may think that he needs to just settle down and ask God whether the Book of Mormon is true, and then act on the positive response he is sure to get. And maybe that's what he should do. But maybe he has asked and hasn't gotten the answer you believe he should.

But in either case, if I may be so bold as to suggest it, that you just answer his questions honestly and stop questioning his motives? 

Besides anything else, he's one of the best thought-provoking questioners on this board. For that reason I hope he continues to ask questions. And maybe he will see the light someday! 

[Navidad]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If I may Navidad, I think you’re not grasping the responses because they’re not consistent with your preconceived paradigm. It’s as though you believe repetitive questioning will alter the response; usually, it won’t. 
 

I occasionally encountered editors like that in the course of my career. The editor would send a reporter out on assignment and would experience considerable dissonance when the reporter came back with a story that was unlike what the editor had anticipated. It was as if the editor had pre-written the story himself in his own mind and would badger the reporter if the story did not match his mental preconception. 
 

Too much of naming names and trying to justify myself and my questions. Scott is more than welcome to express his thoughts and opinions. As is anyone else here. I shouldn't try to refute them. That most likely won't help the situation in any redemptive manner.

Edited April 12, 2022 by Navidad

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

This made me burst out laughing!

I hope it wasn't me who wrote that!  Sometimes I forget what I write and am amazed when stumbling back over it again.

Everyone wants to rule the world, just like every single one of us has an opinion. My opinion is that yes, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a part of the worldwide community of Christ, in the sense of the writer of the back cover of your book. It so happens that (in my opinion) the CoJCoLDS is the only one with full divine authority, and the one with the most complete and correct understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but as important as that is (to me, at least), we're all Christians, and we are all in this together.

Amen! Except I don't want to rule the world. Now if I could just get my dog to do what I ask!

[Stargazer]

2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Amen! Except I don't want to rule the world. Now if I could just get my dog to do what I ask!

Ruling the world just popped in my head because of the song and opinions... Though I would definitely vote for you if you ran for emperor of the world!

One of my favorite songs:

 

[Navidad]

57 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Scott, I don't think he's trying to get altered responses. My observation after all this time is that he does this trying to gain the greatest understanding that he can. He's not badgering us. He's asking questions in different ways in order to learn more. 

Now, you may think that he needs to just settle down and ask God whether the Book of Mormon is true, and then act on the positive response he is sure to get. And maybe that's what he should do. But maybe he has asked and hasn't gotten the answer you believe he should.

But in either case, if I may be so bold as to suggest it, that you just answer his questions honestly and stop questioning his motives? 

Besides anything else, he's one of the best thought-provoking questioners on this board. For that reason I hope he continues to ask questions. And maybe he will see the light someday! 

Thank you. That was very kind. I guess I have to settle down. Maybe I will do better if I limit myself to three questions a week! Sometimes I worry about posting too much, But then I look at all the zillions of posts back and forth from the same people. I probably rank pretty low in number of posts a week. After five years I am still not a Grand Master or whatever it is called! I always wanted to be a Grand Master at something! Anyway. Thanks for your kindness.


 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

That made me laugh, not only because of the obvious humor, but also because it is basically what my Dad did when I asked his permission to be baptized into the the LDS church. He drew out a (very generalized) chart of descent, in order to make sure that I was aware that there were all these offshoots in religion, and they were ALL wrong, ALL man-made. I thanked him for his perspective and then he signed the permission slip. He was a devout agnostic.

That is a great cartoon! I love it.

[Stargazer]

15 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thank you. That was very kind. I guess I have to settle down. Maybe I will do better if I limit myself to three questions a week! Sometimes I worry about posting too much, But then I look at all the zillions of posts back and forth from the same people. I probably rank pretty low in number of posts a week. After five years I am still not a Grand Master or whatever it is called! I always wanted to be a Grand Master at something! Anyway. Thanks for your kindness.

You're welcome!

I got fed up with politics in a thread back in January, and I didn't post anything for three months. Just needed to chill out. I doubt anyone noticed my absence. That was the longest period of absence here since I started. A loooonnnngggg time ago.

[mfbukowski]

On 4/5/2022 at 8:02 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

 

 

Liturgy proves that, I think.

God teaches in symbols.

Without a consistent context for God's symbolic Liturgies, God cannot speak to his people.  Meditating on the liturgy is the key.

 

[mfbukowski]

41 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thank you. That was very kind. I guess I have to settle down. Maybe I will do better if I limit myself to three questions a week! Sometimes I worry about posting too much, But then I look at all the zillions of posts back and forth from the same people. I probably rank pretty low in number of posts a week. After five years I am still not a Grand Master or whatever it is called! I always wanted to be a Grand Master at something! Anyway. Thanks for your kindness.


 

Don't bother with that stuff.

I don't even know or care about what it means. 

 

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

But in either case, if I may be so bold as to suggest it, that you just answer his questions honestly and stop questioning his motives? 

I did answer his inquiry posed in the OP, and, notwithstanding what you seem to be implying, did so honestly and with candor (which is what I thought he would have wanted). 
 

When, through his rejoinders and repetitive questioning, he implied he thought the answers he’s received here weren’t responsive, I tried to come up with a possible reason for that and, again, to express it with candor (and there’s no need to put words in my mouth regarding what you expect MY motives are; you’re missing the mark there). I never intended to carry it forward into a protracted argument, and I’m definitely not inclined to do so now. So I’ll leave it there and exit the thread. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

You're welcome!

I got fed up with politics in a thread back in January, and I didn't post anything for three months. Just needed to chill out. I doubt anyone noticed my absence. That was the longest period of absence here since I started. A loooonnnngggg time ago.

I did.  I hang out so much here it is pretty easy to notice when a frequent poster goes quiet.

Edited April 12, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Don't bother with that stuff.

I don't even know or care about what it means. 

 

 

 

All anyone needs to know is it is impossible to catch up with me, so no one needs to worry about their numbers.  
 

Ach, I think I last looked at my numbers when I was around 50k.  And that number was embarrassing. I need to find a second hobby.

[3DOP]

On 4/10/2022 at 2:24 PM, Navidad said:

Thanks my friend. So would you also reject the idea that the Catholic Church is part of the world-wide church today? Or is it the concept of it being a "branch" that is the sticking point? Since the very early 1500s the Anabaptist movement as exemplified today in the Mennonites, Amish, and Brethren groups has rejected a view of itself as being a "branch" of the reformation. It has a much stronger sense of self as an early restorationist group. Certainly there are any number of 19th century American groups that consider themselves restorational. The LDS church has no unique hold on that claim.

I am not sure I understand if you and @Scott Lloyd are suggesting there is no such thing as a world-wide church today, or if simply you and others are suggesting that it exists, but that the COJCOLDS and the Catholic church are not part of it? Or they are a part, but not a branch of it? Is it the word "branch" that is the sticking point? Or you are each individually and separately the essence of the world-wide church today, and all the rest of us are ?????? What?

Do we simply come together occasionally to discuss our varying beliefs on such topics as "the unique nature of Christ," then go our separate ways separately trying to "convert" each other to our unique expression of Christianity? I find it a very interesting topic. For example I am not sure that you and I, or Scott and I don't have more in common than do you and our local village priest, or @Scott Lloyd and my Lebaron friends down the road. I try, but I can't get my head around how we are not, each of us a part of the great historical and present-existing Christian community world-wide? It reminds me of my Fundamentalist friends in a way. Ask them how they relate to the rest of Christianity, and they will tell you what they are not, and what they are against. It is hard to figure out how they indeed are related.  Thanks so much for your reply.

Navidad, thank you for sincere interest. I appreciate the reasons one in your position might have in asking:

"I try, but I can't get my head around how we are not, each of us a part of the great historical and present-existing Christian community world-wide?"

This is the main question I will try to address in the next few hours when we try to feel the desolation of our Lord's absence for our salvation. Ah...the greatest of Sundays is coming! The Sunday which is symbolized in every other! We know it. And it can't but erupt sometimes in anticipated joy even as we finish the last weary, mournful hours. 

Anyway, A blessed Good Friday to you and all, as I try to gradually address your questions today and tomorrow without excessive reference to my own inevitable thoughts about the days that are now upon us.  

3DOP