As Latter-day Saints do you feel closer to Protestants, Catholics, or Orthodox?

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Several posts above I provided a definition from the Oxford Dictionary. I see no reason to modify it - "The Oxford Dictionary defines denomination as "a recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church."

And that is the only definition?

So when anybody uses the word denomination they mean it to reference "a recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church."

Even when they refer to denominations as units of measure in the metric system? Or denominations of currency? Or, perhaps even curiouser, denominations of Jews?

 

[LoudmouthMormon]

Quote

As Latter-day Saints do you feel closer to Protestants, Catholics, or Orthodox?

I know it wasn't the actual question, but my first answer was "Yes, yes I do."

Compared to the Christians of past decades, yes indeed, I do feel closer to them these days.  It's been a while since my wife ran into someone who legitimately believed that mormons had horns.  My local megachurch doesn't throw their "are Mormons Christian" classes any more.  Almost 20 years since Ravi Zacharias spoke in our tabernacle.  Almost 10 years after Baptist Al Mohler gave a talk at BYU.   I remember walking through Christian bookstores, heading to their anti-mormon section, to see the new titles.  I remember getting to know coworkers at new jobs, upon hearing I was LDS, the conversation chilled - sometimes they blurted out something about the wrong Jesus before catching themselves. 

Around a decade ago, news broke about how the folks at BYU that preserved historical documents, had a part in the Vatican's efforts to digitize their copious records.  I had an apologetic blast going to Catholic forums and telling them about it.  Some refused to believe, even after I provided links from Catholic sources.  Others started worrying that "mormons were infecting our liturgy with their lies", and were going to go tell people about it, so it could be stopped before it was too late.   In 2019 when Pres. Nelson met with the Pope, I went to a Catholic discussion forum and found most people happy about it - only a few folks hatin' on their Pope for doing it.  

Yes, the Christian world is friendlier and much less angry towards me and mine, than before.  Makes it easier to not just feel closer, but to be closer to folks.

 

Edited May 13, 2022 by LoudmouthMormon

[MiserereNobis]

10 hours ago, Navidad said:

Perhaps the ease with which you dismiss the hurt tells me you have no close personal daily relationships with LDS folks.

This is true (except for my interactions on this board). I suppose if I had a close personal daily relationship with someone and they said hurtful things to me and I would tell them why that is hurtful in the hopes they would stop. If they didn't stop being hurtful, I would not interact with them anymore.

I also apologize for calling you a protestant when you do not identify as one. I think my point was less that you are protestant but more that you deny the belief that there is "one true church" as protestants do. I assume you also reject the idea of the apostolic succession of priesthood, as do protestants, because the two go hand in hand.

I understand LDS exceptionalism because it is like Catholic exceptionalism. We both believe that our priesthood is the only true priesthood. That doesn't dismiss any spiritual experiences other Christians have.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

And that is the only definition?

So when anybody uses the word denomination they mean it to reference "a recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church."

Even when they refer to denominations as units of measure in the metric system? Or denominations of currency? Or, perhaps even curiouser, denominations of Jews?

 

No, that wasn't the only definition. It was the only relevant definition. There were in fact two, the second was the denomination of currency. Tell us more about Jewish denominations. I am not familiar with that term. Thanks.

[mfbukowski]

14 minutes ago, Navidad said:

No, that wasn't the only definition. It was the only relevant definition. There were in fact two, the second was the denomination of currency. Tell us more about Jewish denominations. I am not familiar with that term. Thanks.

That's why he included a link to that information 

I am partial to the Reconstructionists

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstructionist_Judaism

Edited May 13, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Can there be a non-denominational denomination?

Absolutely there can. The IFCA (Independent Fundamentalist Churches of America) is a non-denominational denomination. For 100 years or so it has existed as a clearly identified group of non-denominational churches aligned together to do missionary work, create publications, and establish a common identity for a variety of purposes. Each church is however, completely independent of any hierarchy. The pastor is appointed by a vote of the local board or congregation. He or she (most often he) is accountable to no one but his own board or congregation. Many of the websites cited on this forum as being typical of Evangelicals are in reality independent groups who stridently do their own thing with no organizational oversight, far more Fundamentalist than Evangelical.

Edited May 13, 2022 by Navidad

[Amulek]

17 minutes ago, Navidad said:

No, that wasn't the only definition. It was the only relevant definition. There were in fact two, the second was the denomination of currency.

And the Oxford Dictionary you are referencing is the only dictionary, so these are the only two possibilities for how the word "denomination" is used?

Do you see where this is going?

 

Quote

Tell us more about Jewish denominations. I am not familiar with that term. Thanks.

Follow the link in my previous post. Or, if you would prefer another example, how about this one which reports that "The Sunni branch is by far the largest denomination of Islam and represents 89-90% of all followers of Islam."

Do you believe that the Sunni denomination in Islam is also a "recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church."

I mean, if that's what "denomination" means (and we aren't talking about currency), then that must be true. Right?

 

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

And the Oxford Dictionary you are referencing is the only dictionary, so these are the only two possibilities for how the word "denomination" is used?

Do you see where this is going?

 

Follow the link in my previous post. Or, if you would prefer another example, how about this one which reports that "The Sunni branch is by far the largest denomination of Islam and represents 89-90% of all followers of Islam."

Do you believe that the Sunni denomination in Islam is also a "recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church."

I mean, if that's what "denomination" means (and we aren't talking about currency), then that must be true. Right?

 

OK. I give up. I have no idea where this is going. Nor can I divine your intent. Why don't you simply tell me? So, a denomination is a recognized autonomous branch of any religious group, or any group? Is that your point? How is that relevant to the topic at hand? I am not following you, but then I am still recovering from a concussion. Help me out here.

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

that you deny the belief that there is "one true church"

I don't deny the belief that there is "one true Christian church." I believe the "one true church" is, or perhaps better will be the New Jerusalem, formed after the work of the judgment seat of Christ is completed, and our hope becomes reality. That one true church that is to come will be based on the primacy of the atonement of Christ and His perfect judgment based on equal parts of mercy and righteousness. He alone knows the criteria He will use. All our earthly and silly disagreements, questions, biases, mocking of each other, opinions, and truths will be done with and over forever. We will then stand in awe before Absolute Truth.

As the Adventist songs goes, "But until then my heart will go on singing, until then with joy I'll carry on. Until the days my eyes behold the City, until the day God calls me home." I look forward with hope to getting to know both you, Mark, and many others from this forum on that day and in that church.

Edited May 13, 2022 by Navidad

[MiserereNobis]

Just now, Navidad said:

I don't deny the belief that there is "one true Christian church." I believe the "one true church" is, or perhaps better will be the New Jerusalem, formed after the work of the judgment seat of Christ is completed, and our hope becomes reality.

Ok, I'll reword it. You deny the belief that there is one true Church of Christ as understood by LDS and Catholics: a visible church today with a hierarchy (organization) and a priesthood that must be received by someone who has received it going all the way back to the apostles who received it from Christ. A church that can offer the sacraments of grace (ordinances in LDS terms). Am I correct that you deny this belief?

[Amulek]

44 minutes ago, Navidad said:

OK. I give up. I have no idea where this is going. Nor can I divine your intent. Why don't you simply tell me? So, a denomination is a recognized autonomous branch of any religious group, or any group? Is that your point? How is that relevant to the topic at hand? I am not following you, but then I am still recovering from a concussion. Help me out here.

You don't understand how the meaning of the word "denomination" is relevant to the discussion about whether or not LDS consider themselves to be a denomination?

Ugh, this is going to be painful.

Here are two definitions you have proposed for the word "denomination" in this thread, both from the Oxford Dictionary (OD):

     1 : a recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church
     2 : the denomination of currency

Alternatively, here are the definitions from Merriam-Webster (MW):

     1 : an act of denominating the denomination of prices in U.S. dollars
     2 : a value or size of a series of values or sizes metric denominations especially : the value of a particular coin or bill bills in $20 and $50 denominations
     3 : name, designation especially : a general name for a category listed under the general denomination of gifts
     4 : a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices

Now, from my perspective, here's what I saw transpire in this thread:

You claimed that your LDS friends get angry whenever you say they are a denomination [OD1].

@bluebelland @mfbukowskiboth basically chimed in and said, "Say what? There's nothing wrong with calling the LDS church a denomination [MW4]."

You then retorted, 'excellent, then we're all in agreement that the LDS church is a denomination [OD1] and not thee [sic] only true church.'

Which is when @Peacefully piped up and said, 'not so fast buddy...I remember being taught that the church isn't a denomination [OD1]. We're totally the only true church, not just one of many equally acceptable branches.'

At which point you started acting all confused / frustrated because Mormons can't agree on whether or not we are a denomination.

My comments were simply trying to get you to recognize that you are using a narrower definition of the word than what everyone else is.

But honestly, I really don't think you don't know this. I think you are too educated not to know better. But if you legitimately needed the help here, then I hope I've helped.

Peace out. I've got a movie to catch.

 

 

[Navidad]

8 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Ok, I'll reword it. You deny the belief that there is one true Church of Christ as understood by LDS and Catholics: a visible church today with a hierarchy (organization) and a priesthood that must be received by someone who has received it going all the way back to the apostles who received it from Christ. A church that can offer the sacraments of grace (ordinances in LDS terms). Am I correct that you deny this belief?

Sorry my friend I am not going to fit into the box of your making that your question presupposes. I believe that there exists on earth today a church - the Christian church as organized by Christ after his resurrection. It has a priesthood going all the way back past the apostles and disciples of the New Testament to the Melchizedek priesthood of the only priest-king who existed on earth prior to the incarnate Christ. It is a holy and royal priesthood - the priesthood of I Peter 2:9. Spoken of and written about by Peter, himself, a rather important figure and founder in both the LDS and Catholic churches. I also recognize his importance in scripture and in the early church as well. 

This priesthood is not the personal property of any one earthly denomination (YIKES), sub-group, or institution. It is bigger than that. It is described by Peter as a holy nation, God's special people for His own purpose. It is a hint of what is yet to come in the New Jerusalem where all earthly associations will be put behind us.

I believe we receive it from the Abrahamic covenant through the new covenant or testament of Christ's blood. It is a church, the members of which can offer the sacraments or ordinances of grace (I love it when I hear a sacrament talk about grace in our ward). Speaking of ordinances, my ordinance or sacrament of baptism as I received it, is accepted by the Roman Catholic Church, together with adult catechism, for membership in that body. That is evidence to me that an ordinance of grace as you put it transcends earthly group boundaries. Certainly there are Protestant groups that accept Catholic baptism as well. Some, like the LDS will not accept my baptism, but those barriers are temporary. They will be done away with in the New Jerusalem, where all present will have passed the judgment seat of Christ and will have been successfully sun-tested by Him, won't they? Compared with eternity, our earthly divisions and understandings will be of little or no consequence.

You have asked me what I deny which is another way of asking what I believe, is it not? I heartily believe in one true Church of Christ in this day and age and on this earth, which is the world-wide community of Christ and is a shadow of what is to come in the eternity that is to come. My Fundamentalist friends are typically happier with telling you about what they are against, or deny. I prefer to focus on what I am for, and look forward with eager anticipation to that which lies beyond the sunset. Take care and best wishes.

[Navidad]

8 minutes ago, Amulek said:

You don't understand how the meaning of the word "denomination" is relevant to the discussion about whether or not LDS consider themselves to be a denomination?

Ugh, this is going to be painful.

Here are two definitions you have proposed for the word "denomination" in this thread, both from the Oxford Dictionary (OD):

     1 : a recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church
     2 : the denomination of currency

Alternatively, here are the definitions from Merriam-Webster (MW):

     1 : an act of denominating the denomination of prices in U.S. dollars
     2 : a value or size of a series of values or sizes metric denominations especially : the value of a particular coin or bill bills in $20 and $50 denominations
     3 : name, designation especially : a general name for a category listed under the general denomination of gifts
     4 : a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices

Now, from my perspective, here's what I saw transpire in this thread:

You claimed that your LDS friends get angry whenever you say they are a denomination [OD1].

@bluebelland @mfbukowskiboth basically chimed in and said, "Say what? There's nothing wrong with calling the LDS church a denomination [MW4]."

You then retorted, 'excellent, then we're all in agreement that the LDS church is a denomination [OD1] and not thee [sic] only true church.'

Which is when @Peacefully piped up and said, 'not so fast buddy...I remember being taught that the church isn't a denomination [OD1]. We're totally the only true church, not just one of many equally acceptable branches.'

At which point you started acting all confused / frustrated because Mormons can't agree on whether or not we are a denomination.

My comments were simply trying to get you to recognize that you are using a narrower definition of the word than what everyone else is.

But honestly, I really don't think you don't know this. I think you are too educated not to know better. But if you legitimately needed the help here, then I hope I've helped.

Peace out. I've got a movie to catch.

 

 

Gotcha. I now understand. I am using a narrower definition of the word than everyone else is. OK. I have no problem expanding my understanding of the term. You have helped. Sometimes it seems as if we talk more past each other than to each other on this forum. We talk to each other through and via our own filters. That is a challenge to these types of monological (that doesn't look like a word) conversations. Enjoy your movie! Best to you. Several nights ago my wife and I watched The Last Champion. We really enjoyed it.

[MiserereNobis]

4 minutes ago, Navidad said:

You have asked me what I deny which is another way of asking what I believe, is it not?

Yes, thanks for sharing what you believe. I was trying to flesh what you don't believe by using the word "deny."

4 minutes ago, Navidad said:

This priesthood is not the personal property of any one earthly denomination (YIKES), sub-group, or institution.

This is where the LDS and the Catholics disagree with you, though I would word it differently. It is not the "personal property" of one denomination (yikes, but we know what we mean). It is Christ's priesthood, not the denomination's. However, it is only found in *one* denomination. The LDS believe it's in theirs, we Catholics believe it is in ours.

6 minutes ago, Navidad said:

It is a holy and royal priesthood - the priesthood of I Peter 2:9. Spoken of and written about by Peter, himself, a rather important figure and founder in both the LDS and Catholic churches. I also recognize his importance in scripture and in the early church as well. 

Catholics believe in the priesthood of all believers as spoken here, too. Christians are to offer themselves up in sacrifice to God and others -- that is the priesthood of all believers. However, Catholics also believe in the priesthood of holy orders. This is the priesthood necessary for the sacraments and what I have been referring to as "the priesthood" during this thread. It is the priesthood of ordination, the priesthood that protestants deny.

11 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Speaking of ordinances, my ordinance or sacrament of baptism as I received it, is accepted by the Roman Catholic Church, together with adult catechism, for membership in that body. That is evidence to me that an ordinance of grace as you put it transcends earthly group boundaries.

Yes, the priesthood is not necessary to administer baptism, so someone who does not have Catholic holy orders can perform baptism (within certain bounds -- the Catholic Church does not accept LDS baptism as valid). The normal minister of the sacrament would be a priest, but it is not required. However, the other sacraments do require holy orders. If you were to become Catholic, you would have to be confirmed by a Catholic bishop or priest (if the bishop has delegated it). That step requires holy orders.

The fact that baptism does not require a priest does not negate the need for priesthood.

16 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Compared with eternity, our earthly divisions and understandings will be of little or no consequence.

I agree that there will not be earthly divisions in the eternities. That doesn't mean that all of the earthly divisions right now are meaningless. I think some of them quite important. That is why as Catholics we pray for the unity of the Church, and that our separated brothers will return.

[Navidad]

14 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yes, thanks for sharing what you believe. I was trying to flesh what you don't believe by using the word "deny."

This is where the LDS and the Catholics disagree with you, though I would word it differently. It is not the "personal property" of one denomination (yikes, but we know what we mean). It is Christ's priesthood, not the denomination's. However, it is only found in *one* denomination. The LDS believe it's in theirs, we Catholics believe it is in ours.

Catholics believe in the priesthood of all believers as spoken here, too. Christians are to offer themselves up in sacrifice to God and others -- that is the priesthood of all believers. However, Catholics also believe in the priesthood of holy orders. This is the priesthood necessary for the sacraments and what I have been referring to as "the priesthood" during this thread. It is the priesthood of ordination, the priesthood that protestants deny.

Yes, the priesthood is not necessary to administer baptism, so someone who does not have Catholic holy orders can perform baptism (within certain bounds -- the Catholic Church does not accept LDS baptism as valid). The normal minister of the sacrament would be a priest, but it is not required. However, the other sacraments do require holy orders. If you were to become Catholic, you would have to be confirmed by a Catholic bishop or priest (if the bishop has delegated it). That step requires holy orders.

The fact that baptism does not require a priest does not negate the need for priesthood.

I agree that there will not be earthly divisions in the eternities. That doesn't mean that all of the earthly divisions right now are meaningless. I think some of them quite important. That is why as Catholics we pray for the unity of the Church, and that our separated brothers will return.

Thanks for the helpful reply. I must go back to what I said to you originally. It is the personal relationships that create what is troubling to me. If the LDS and the Catholics disagree with me on the priesthood, it is of no importance to me, especially when looking at it in earthly (this dispensation or worldly) terms. I struggle with the personal aspect of this. To some degree the folks in our ward and my wife and I are somewhat codependent. That is too complicated to get into here. But we both care for and need each other, but are divided by doctrine. It is easier for me to dismiss doctrine (the trinity for example) than the relationships. My LDS friends are much more tied into their doctrine and the uniqueness of their church than I am mine. To everyone's credit we are trying to work through it. Best wishes.

Edited May 14, 2022 by Navidad

[Peacefully]

This sketch made me think of the conversation on this thread. BYU reference… priceless, lol. 
 

 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

It is described by Peter as a holy nation, God's special people for His own purpose. It is a hint of what is yet to come in the New Jerusalem where all earthly associations will be put behind us.

Like maybe the "chosen people"?

Uh oh.  Sounds exclusive to me, if there's a "holy nation" then there has to be less holy nations, and we can't have that, can we?

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

We talk to each other through and via our own filters

THAT is straight Rorty and yes, the crux of the problem.  AND why Christ is the WORD, the beginning and end of all truth, found only through the Spirit, not human words.

[Navidad]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

THAT is straight Rorty and yes, the crux of the problem.  AND why Christ is the WORD, the beginning and end of all truth, found only through the Spirit, not human words.

Lot to unpack in that sentence. But from your previous post of the same hour, you still appear to be in your sarcastic place, so I will respectfully decline to try and unpack it with you.

[The Nehor]

On 5/13/2022 at 11:04 AM, LoudmouthMormon said:

I know it wasn't the actual question, but my first answer was "Yes, yes I do."

Compared to the Christians of past decades, yes indeed, I do feel closer to them these days.  It's been a while since my wife ran into someone who legitimately believed that mormons had horns.  My local megachurch doesn't throw their "are Mormons Christian" classes any more.  Almost 20 years since Ravi Zacharias spoke in our tabernacle.  Almost 10 years after Baptist Al Mohler gave a talk at BYU.   I remember walking through Christian bookstores, heading to their anti-mormon section, to see the new titles.  I remember getting to know coworkers at new jobs, upon hearing I was LDS, the conversation chilled - sometimes they blurted out something about the wrong Jesus before catching themselves. 

Around a decade ago, news broke about how the folks at BYU that preserved historical documents, had a part in the Vatican's efforts to digitize their copious records.  I had an apologetic blast going to Catholic forums and telling them about it.  Some refused to believe, even after I provided links from Catholic sources.  Others started worrying that "mormons were infecting our liturgy with their lies", and were going to go tell people about it, so it could be stopped before it was too late.   In 2019 when Pres. Nelson met with the Pope, I went to a Catholic discussion forum and found most people happy about it - only a few folks hatin' on their Pope for doing it.  

Yes, the Christian world is friendlier and much less angry towards me and mine, than before.  Makes it easier to not just feel closer, but to be closer to folks.

 

Enjoy it while it lasts. I don’t think it will much longer.

[pogi]

7 hours ago, Navidad said:

Lot to unpack in that sentence. But from your previous post of the same hour, you still appear to be in your sarcastic place, so I will respectfully decline to try and unpack it with you.

I don’t sense any sarcasm there.  He’s agreeing with you.  Human words are inadequate and are only seeds to truth which is found and experienced only via the Spirit of the only true WORD.

[Navidad]

23 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Like maybe the "chosen people"?

Uh oh.  Sounds exclusive to me, if there's a "holy nation" then there has to be less holy nations, and we can't have that, can we?

 

7 hours ago, pogi said:

I don’t sense any sarcasm there.  He’s agreeing with you.  Human words are inadequate and are only seeds to truth which is found and experienced only via the Spirit of the only true WORD.

The above post is the one I am talking about (about chose people and a "holy nation"). Not the one to which you are referring.

Edited May 15, 2022 by Navidad

[mfbukowski]

On 5/14/2022 at 6:22 AM, Navidad said:

Lot to unpack in that sentence. But from your previous post of the same hour, you still appear to be in your sarcastic place, so I will respectfully decline to try and unpack it with you.

One usually quotes the post upon which one is replying, without doing so it appears to be avoidance of confronting the actual issue 

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, Navidad said:

 

The above post is the one I am talking about (about chose people and a "holy nation"). Not the one to which you are referring.

.....As indicated here as well.

It appears you have no answer to whatever post you refuse to discuss.

I do not want to be "sarcastic" but I am growing weary of repeating the same argument about "Mormon superiority " for years now; surely you see your faith as the best one for you, but you apparently can't see that.

It seems quite odd to me that you, with your education and intelligence refuse to see and comment on what seems to be obvious to others. No sarcasm- it's just clear as a bell.

So please show me where I have gotten it wrong 

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

.....As indicated here as well.

It appears you have no answer to whatever post you refuse to discuss.

I do not want to be "sarcastic" but I am growing weary of repeating the same argument about "Mormon superiority " for years now; surely you see your faith as the best one for you, but you apparently can't see that.

It seems quite odd to me that you, with your education and intelligence refuse to see and comment on what seems to be obvious to others. No sarcasm- it's just clear as a bell.

So please show me where I have gotten it wrong 

There are no posts that I "refuse to discuss." In fact, I probably discuss too many too much. Perhaps over and over. I recently made a comment here that we all see these issues and subjects through our own filters. I think you agreed with that, but I am not certain. Let me try and clearly say several things about me (not you) that I hope will be helpful to you and perhaps others in understanding me:

1. I don't deal well with mocking, sarcasm, generalizing, normalizing, ranking, and especially with dehumanizing. These are filters with which I find it difficult to interact. I believe they are precursors to a host of isms - racism, ethnocentrism, creedalism, ageism, sexism, etc etc etc that are the causes of most of that which divides us and our communication. Both intellectually and emotionally I don't deal well with them.
2. My faith is not a cognitive, pragmatic, intellectual exercise. It is not a battle or a game to be won. It is not a strategy. It is very affective, emotional, and satisfying just as it is. In that sense it is "the best one for me, that is what I can see" - not because I have assurance of eternal life, but because it gives me permission to explore, seek, and understand things that are very different - kind of like living here in Mexico does. My entire life I have been a flighter, not a fighter. I avoid conflict, mocking, sarcasm, and demeaning forms of expression whenever and wherever I can. If that leads to certain comments that I "refuse to discuss" then so be it. It is not a fault. I am not you. You are not me. You are not superior to me, nor I to you. My faith is not superior to yours, nor is yours to mine. Neither are the best- that is a completely foreign concept to how I think. I am not exceptional; neither is my faith. I am not the only true and living anything; neither is my faith. That is why I left Fundamentalism as a young man.
3. I do not value certainty. I believe my emotions, beliefs, and wisdom grow with uncertainty. Therefore I enjoy engaging in uncertainty. I love visiting places I have never been before, turning down a road I have never traveled, learning about new things, especially that which may expand how I look at life. That is growth to me. I don't spend time on this board to find confirmation of my own faith. The idea of fortifying what I already know, strengthening my existing beliefs or faith, or mounting the bulwark is of no interest to me. Intellectual one-upsmanship is of no interest to me. Three hours of discussion with the Catholic bishop in our region - now that is fascinating and growth-producing. 
4. Since 1989 the Mormon faith has been a new world for me - one of great interest in understanding. Recently it has become much less of a shiny object for me. It is a world of generalizing, normalizing, ranking and to a much smaller degree dehumanizing (mocking) those who are not them. That makes me lose interest. They are at the same time kind and loving, but I can't even bathe in that because then someone says something about needing to be worthy, or assures me of what I am not. So that I fear that even the kindness becomes a worthiness exercise instead of a pure (sun-tested) expression of love. I am not going to the ward today. This forum sometimes makes me not go. You sometimes make me not want to go to the ward. I am tired of the constant bickering, debate, and especially the normalizing and generalizing about those who are not popular on this forum.
5. I am not trying to be you. I have no faith crisis. A faith crisis for me would be certainty that I am right, or the best. That would be the end of the road of becoming. That is not a positive outcome.
6. I fell two weeks ago and have struggled with getting over the physical damage (concussion, missing and broken teeth, bruises, inflammation, and infection). That is a finite thing. I hope I will get over it, but it bothers me a lot right now. I acknowledge that. I have my own blind spots. You have yours.

I won't write any more. My filters are not yours, neither are yours mine. You once recently said you were praying for my recovery from my fall. I about fell out of my desk chair. That meant a lot. But you quickly went back to your default sarcasm. That hurt a lot, because you took away the gift you had given me. I regret that and any role I played in it. Where have you gotten it wrong? - your last question. You have gotten it wrong by preferring that I be you or that I should respond to things as you would.

Edited May 15, 2022 by Navidad