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

[mfbukowski]

On 5/10/2022 at 7:45 AM, bluebell said:

I have never met a member of the church that had any opinion either way on calling us a denomination.  I've referred to us as one before many times.  I wonder why the members that you are familiar with get so bent out of shape about it?  It's interesting that they have such a strong reaction.

I second this emotion!

[Navidad]

11 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

I am LDS, but I'm really more LDS+ with a deep love of the Royal Israelite Cult and Non-Canonical Books and beliefs that I believe align with Mormonism but I could never say in church. I actively attend Jehovah's Witnesses, Messianic Jews, and non-denominational churches and study groups. I'm opinionated but I'm not a bad guy to dialog with. I try to talk to people on their own terms, I never interrupt lessons but rather I contribute whenever I can and agree. The JWs don't even know I'm not one of them. I may role my eyes when they tell me their church is true because of such pointers as non-pay ministers, missionaries and rapid church growth... Sure, guys, I agree, but I don't tell you that the Saints beat you by a hundred years... Only privately or in discussion groups do I express my true self, I know I can never change the religion, I never try to do that.

I argue...er, rather openly disagree... (need to be careful about how I say things) with the ideas put forward by my non-denominational and my Apostolic Oneness friends all the time. They sometimes throw my Mormonism in my face when I do so, like it has something to do with it. Even though everything I say is usually Bible-based, Dead Sea Scrolls this and that, they come out of left field, "err, didn't Joseph Smith practice polygamy?"... Now what does that have to do with the price of whips in Denmark? Just because you know I'm right about one thing doesn't mean all my Mormon beliefs are true. I never tear down anything without building up faith. Whenever I disparage the Bible's transmission errors, I never bring it up without taking time to explain why that its not detrimental to my faith. We generally have an understanding.

I poke at my Messianic friends about their Constantine conspiracy theory about Sunday. I poke at my Apostolic Oneness people who have this theory of God is "one" because he is Omnipresent and can be in two places at once. I have to explain that just because its a probable explanation, that doesn't mean its the only possible explanation. And I poke at my non-denominational friends when they talk against divisions, when they are the most divided of all groups... Its a different argument than merely not accepting the denominations that currently exist and those who want to avoid the label.

Actually, I despise this "no labels" trend, which ironically itself has become a label, via the “No Labels” centrist movement. I mean, whats not to like about the incoherent thinking of the inarticulate masses, who's goals seems to be to have no clue who your enemy is, except people who use labels. Dare to call someone a socialist and stand accused of exacerbating problems rather than solving them. As if labels are the reason for disagreement, it isn't. Differences in philosophies are real and a middle ground is an illusion. Please tell me the middle position on abortion or the death penalty? There will always be a label on something. Labels arise because people believe in something in common, believe in it wholeheartedly, and want their ideas to prevail. They don’t believe in swapping out some of them for others in order to make nice to the other side. They want the other side to lose and their side to win because they believe their ideas are good and the other side’s ideas are bad. We all do it, and it will never stop, and if it ever does, I guess I'll have to endure more vagueness and incoherence than I do already.

So... Yes, look down on (err, openly disagree with) those denominational Saints, but tell them what-fore. Tell them if the truth hurts, get a helmet.

Wow! You pack a lot in there. I too have many friends in the Messianic Jewish and Apostolic Oneness movement. As I think about it, I don't know a single member of the JW group. I have learned over four or five years on this forum that it is indeed very important "how we say things." I also believe that has been a good lesson for me to learn. It has been helpful in other aspects of my life as well.

It appears from your comments that you are a "poker" - one who enjoys "poking." That will be fun to watch. The diversity of this group includes professional pokers and those who strongly dislike the same. I am not sure what you mean by a "no labels" trend. I think you are affirming that saying that one is non-denominational is a label of its own. I certainly agree with that. Perhaps you could share more about your view of a "no labels" trend? I would suggest life is lived on a continuum of views 0n most things. We all live on varying continuums (probably not a word) about this issue, belief, opinion, truth or another. I know I am a mixture of progressive and conservative beliefs that often confuses folks who prefer or find comfort in labelizing (another non-word).

I for one am a fan of what theologians and philosophers have deemed "provisional certitude." I love my wife wholeheartedly - there is not much else that I would put that much energy into, especially the philosophical or dogmatized theological. I think thee Truth rarely hurts; your truths and mine might. Being on this forum has caused me to create a stronger helmet. I think in some ways I am worse for that, and probably in some ways better. Again, welcome to the forum.

[Navidad]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I second this emotion!

Good! We have that settled then. The LDS Church is but one denomination, group,  or church among many in the world-wide Christian community. It is not thee church, it is one of many from which a true Christian may choose as their home in which to worship, fellowship, learn, and enjoy the fruits of the Holy Spirit in their lives. I agree. Phew! I feel better already! I can take my helmet off! 😄

[Peacefully]

21 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Good! We have that settled then. The LDS Church is but one denomination, group,  or church among many in the world-wide Christian community. It is not thee church, it is one of many from which a true Christian may choose as their home in which to worship, fellowship, learn, and enjoy the fruits of the Holy Spirit in their lives. I agree. Phew! I feel better already! I can take my helmet off! 😄

Not so fast, lol. I became a member in 1992 and I was taught we are not a denomination. That would make us one of many instead of the one true church on the earth. I think we may have backed off on being offended by being called a denomination in the last few years with more emphasis on our leaders being part of ecumenical conversations. I think this is a good thing. 

Edited May 12, 2022 by Peacefully

[Saint Bonaventure]

I've really benefitted from reading everyone's responses so far. One of the fundamental tensions that's emerging in my interactions with LDS folks is between "the Reformation led to the Restoration, so we're closer to Protestants" idea and the assertion that Joseph Smith realized he couldn't answer key questions only with the Bible, a notion that devastates understandings of sola scriptura.

Sola Scriptura was certainly a problem for some in the 18th and 19th centuries, and one solution was to add more scriptura and/or prophetic influence, hence Ellen White, Mary Baker Eddy, Charles Taze Russell, and, respectfully, Joseph Smith.  

 

Edited May 12, 2022 by Saint Bonaventure

[strappinglad]

There is that little problem with " strait is the gate and narrow the way " scripture that messes with 2000 Christian sects doing their own thing.

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, Peacefully said:

Not so fast, lol. I became a member in 1992 and I was taught we are not a denomination. That would make us one of many instead of the one true church on the earth. I think we may have backed off on being offended by being called a denomination in the last few years with more emphasis on our leaders being part of ecumenical conversations. I think this is a good thing. 

Oh come on now! I was having such a good day. I thought I read in posts above that both Bluebell and Mark agreed they had never heard any Saint object to the LDS church being called a denomination! Yes, calling you a denomination would make you "one of many instead of the one true church on the earth." You are right. The Oxford Dictionary defines denomination as "a recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church." The LDS Church is certainly autonomous and it is a recognized branch. There you have it!

If you were the "one true church on the earth" then you would be in essence "the entirety of the Christian Church on the earth" not a recognized autonomous branch of the greater whole." A couple of months or so ago I started a thread on this subject. It seemed to me that the consensus was that the LDS church is not a denomination, but the whole enchilada (to use a Mexican metaphor)! That leaves the rest of us, Catholics included (inclusive of Orthodox) as "outside of the one true church on the earth." That certainly is a position of "less than." If I insisted that my wife and I are the one true Christian family in our village, I don't think that would go over very well with the many Catholics, some Pentecostals and the two or three LDS Church members who live here as well. Would it? More importantly, it would not be thee Truth, even if it were my truth, which it is not.

I am having some lighthearted fun with all of this, but yet it is very serious to non-LDS Christians as well. When engaged in personal conversations with Saints it seems (to me so I am not making it thee Truth - it is simply my truth, in that it is my experience) that this is the one thing that members equivocate the most on, especially when dialoguing with a fellow non-LDS Christian face-to-face (especially face-to-face). That is why I was taken aback a bit by the inference that folks here have never heard an objection by a Saint to having the LDS Church called a "denomination." Please don't take me too seriously on this, but at the same time . . . . . Take care and best wishes!  

Edited May 12, 2022 by Navidad

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

There is that little problem with " strait is the gate and narrow the way " scripture that messes with 2000 Christian sects doing their own thing.

Not at all. What are the gate and the way metaphors for? My answer would be for the atonement (incarnation, life, death, resurrection, transfiguration, and judgment of Christ). All the rest, about which the 2000 sects, including the LDS Church and the Mennonite Church debate over are appendages! That includes "sola scriptura" - however you define that undefinable and largely irrelevant (today) term, the trinity, the number and form of the administration of ordinances (sacraments), the books in the canon, the evidence of the gifts of the Spirit, the creeds (for those who believe in creeds - I don't), when the tribulation will occur in relation to the rapture, literal versus metaphorical events and language, the number of angels who can dance (eegads!) on the head of a pin, the sinfulness of dancing (had to include that), etc etc etc. These appendages are what divide the 2000 sects to which you refer and none of them (the appendages) are included in the gate or the way (at least not in my belief system of interpretation, or in my truth). Of course my truth is not thee Truth any more than is yours. In all of these appendages, thee Truth is, at this time unknowable beyond provisional certitude.

Edited May 12, 2022 by Navidad

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

That is why I was taken aback a bit by the inference that folks here have never heard an objection by a Saint to having the LDS Church called a "denomination."

I wouldn’t be surprised if many Saints do not realize there is an implication/connotation of branching from another faith of Christianity in being labeled a “denomination”, as in having a ‘parent’ church rather than being an independent ‘birth’, so to speak.  I don’t believe I have heard an objection to being called a denomination myself, but I have heard many objections to being lumped in with Protestants, not being seen as independent in the past.  The military and many institutions had only three designations one could choose from in the past and those were Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish.  That annoyed many Saints I knew then.  Seen as a teaching moment by others…as in explaining to the receptionist or nurse when filling out forms on personal info that one was “other” because one was Mormon and our faith was a restoration, not a reformation.
 

 I don’t know when the military changed and if I was hearing past or current frustrations with them.  Latter-day Saint chaplains were serving by WWI along with rabbis,  Christian Scientists, and one Salvation Army chaplain, but those of the minority Christian faiths were classified as Protestant even when accepted to serve. (You probably know this, just explaining the context of the discussions I had that were not technically about being called a denomination, but in spirit might be seen as that.)

Nice article about some of the history, was hoping to find the date when LDS was allowed on dog tags rather than just the original P, C, or H (Hebrew…wonder why they went with that rather than J). Unfortunately that info was behind a paywall, may look for it later. Looks like some good info in its links as well.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/11/12/how-the-us-military-embraced-americas-religious-diversity/

Quote

 

Rabbis faced less public scrutiny when they donned the uniform of military clergy than Mormons and Christian Scientists. But they encountered a different problem. In 1917, the chaplain’s insignia was a cross – a symbol Jews could not wear since it represents Jesus Christ and Christianity.

The military, however, hesitated to relinquish the cross. Its leaders struggled to determine what its motto “unity without uniformity” meant in material terms: How could it visually designate chaplains as a corps while honoring – or at the very least, not disrespecting – religious specificity?

The compromise, worked out through conversations and negotiations between the military and civilian religious leaders, maintained the cross for Christian chaplains and created a tablet insignia for Jewish chaplains

 

 

Edited May 12, 2022 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

That leaves the rest of us, Catholics included (inclusive of Orthodox) as "outside of the one true church on the earth." That certainly is a position of "less than."

I'm not sure why this bothers you so much (you bring it up often). It is a bedrock belief of the LDS church that they are the "one true church on the earth." You can't take that away and the LDS church still be LDS. Right, LDS friends? You're trying to impose your belief on to them, and not just some side not-very-important belief, but the belief that is very reason for their existence as a church. In the first vision Joseph asked God which church was true. God said none of them and that Joseph would found the true church. Without that vision there would be no Mormonism. You seem to want Mormonism to be Protestantism and get personally hurt when the Mormons push back against that desire. Your desire would destroy Mormonism.

I don't think the average LDS looks at me personally as "less than." It doesn't bother me that they look at Catholicism as "less than." Why? Because I don't need their validation for my beliefs. And I strongly believe that Christ's Church is the Catholic Church, not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or any other visible church. 

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

If I insisted that my wife and I are the one true Christian family in our village, I don't think that would go over very well with the many Catholics, some Pentecostals and the two or three LDS Church members who live here as well. Would it?

I wouldn't get personally upset about it at all. I would just say that you're wrong.

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Of course my truth is not thee Truth any more than is yours.

Yet you keep pushing your truth as thee Truth, even if you say you're not. If you really believed the bolded, then you wouldn't keep bringing this up. You'd probably just shrug and say, "well, what do I know, maybe you guys are right." But it's the opposite. You keep telling the LDS (and by extension, the Catholics, since we also claim exclusivity -- we don't even have open communion, but LDS do) that they are wrong about this.

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

What are the gate and the way metaphors for? My answer would be for the atonement (incarnation, life, death, resurrection, transfiguration, and judgment of Christ). All the rest, about which the 2000 sects, including the LDS Church and the Mennonite Church debate over are appendages!

Again, the bolded is your belief, not the belief of LDS or Catholics. You're trying to make us all Protestants. That's your right, of course, proselytize away! But make sure you do it knowing what you are doing and don't get personally hurt when people tell you they don't believe it. You are trying to convert us by telling us that things that we consider essential are actually not essential, that they are only appendages. I'm not upset that you are doing this. I'm a little mystified that you don't see what you are doing and that you get upset when the LDS assert their core claim of exceptionalism or exclusivity.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm not sure why this bothers you so much (you bring it up often). It is a bedrock belief of the LDS church that they are the "one true church on the earth." You can't take that away and the LDS church still be LDS. Right, LDS friends? You're trying to impose your belief on to them, and not just some side not-very-important belief, but the belief that is very reason for their existence as a church. In the first vision Joseph asked God which church was true. God said none of them and that Joseph would found the true church. Without that vision there would be no Mormonism. You seem to want Mormonism to be Protestantism and get personally hurt when the Mormons push back against that desire. Your desire would destroy Mormonism.

 

Right.  Except the bolded part; that didn't happen.  But with the rest, yes, I completely agree.

[MiserereNobis]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Right.  Except the bolded part; that didn't happen.  But with the rest, yes, I completely agree.

Oh, my apologies, I was going off of memory and thought that's what happened.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, MiserereNobis said:

Oh, my apologies, I was going off of memory and thought that's what happened.

No worries!  You were close enough.   

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Except the bolded part; that didn't happen.

I am missing something here…we say Joseph was the founder of the Church.

Quote

Joseph Smith was the founder and first president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/joseph-smith

Added:  wait, you meant it wasn’t mentioned in the First Vision, just that part he should join none of the other churches; not that founding the church by Joseph didn’t happen at all.  The revelation to found the Church came later. (Haven’t slept for a day or more, I am blaming that…)

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/first-vision?

Edited May 13, 2022 by Calm

[bluebell]

Just now, Calm said:

I am missing something here…we said Joseph was the founder of the Church.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/joseph-smith

 

Mis said "Joseph asked God which church was true. God said none of them and that Joseph would found the true church."

I read Mis as explaining that God told Joseph he would found the true church during the First Vision.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Mis said "Joseph asked God which church was true. God said none of them and that Joseph would found the true church."

I read Mis as explaining that God told Joseph he would found the true church during the First Vision.

I got there eventually.   I am trying to stay awake till night to see if I can stop the progression into total daytime sleeping again…worked last time after a couple of days, but got pretty out of it by the end.  So apologies to all for what may be numerous misunderstandings over the next few days.

Edited May 12, 2022 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

You're trying to make us all Protestants. That's your right, of course, proselytize away! But make sure you do it knowing what you are doing and don't get personally hurt when people tell you they don't believe it. You are trying to convert us by telling us that things that we consider essential are actually not essential, that they are only appendages. I'm not upset that you are doing this. I'm a little mystified that you don't see what you are doing and that you get upset when the LDS assert their core claim of exceptionalism or exclusivity.

Plūrimās gratiās tibi agō, mi frater amantissime! 

Edited May 13, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[The Nehor]

Can there be a non-denominational denomination?

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Can there be a non-denominational denomination?

Great, now you’ve spun me off into a sectarian existential crisis…

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm not sure why this bothers you so much (you bring it up often). It is a bedrock belief of the LDS church that they are the "one true church on the earth." You can't take that away and the LDS church still be LDS. Right, LDS friends? You're trying to impose your belief on to them, and not just some side not-very-important belief, but the belief that is very reason for their existence as a church. In the first vision Joseph asked God which church was true. God said none of them and that Joseph would found the true church. Without that vision there would be no Mormonism. You seem to want Mormonism to be Protestantism and get personally hurt when the Mormons push back against that desire. Your desire would destroy Mormonism.

I don't think the average LDS looks at me personally as "less than." It doesn't bother me that they look at Catholicism as "less than." Why? Because I don't need their validation for my beliefs. And I strongly believe that Christ's Church is the Catholic Church, not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or any other visible church. 

I wouldn't get personally upset about it at all. I would just say that you're wrong.

Yet you keep pushing your truth as thee Truth, even if you say you're not. If you really believed the bolded, then you wouldn't keep bringing this up. You'd probably just shrug and say, "well, what do I know, maybe you guys are right." But it's the opposite. You keep telling the LDS (and by extension, the Catholics, since we also claim exclusivity -- we don't even have open communion, but LDS do) that they are wrong about this.

Again, the bolded is your belief, not the belief of LDS or Catholics. You're trying to make us all Protestants. That's your right, of course, proselytize away! But make sure you do it knowing what you are doing and don't get personally hurt when people tell you they don't believe it. You are trying to convert us by telling us that things that we consider essential are actually not essential, that they are only appendages. I'm not upset that you are doing this. I'm a little mystified that you don't see what you are doing and that you get upset when the LDS assert their core claim of exceptionalism or exclusivity.

Thanks. Well said.

I have tried several times.

Certainly he is Mennonite because he sees it "better" for him.  I can't comprehend it.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Can there be a non-denominational denomination?

No.

So you didn't know that Islam is a denomination???   Cheesh! 

I mean they do have beliefs about Jesus don't they??

In fact they believe he was a great prophet, right? So there's a denomination!

Edited May 13, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

7 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm not sure why this bothers you so much (you bring it up often). It is a bedrock belief of the LDS church that they are the "one true church on the earth." You can't take that away and the LDS church still be LDS. Right, LDS friends? You're trying to impose your belief on to them, and not just some side not-very-important belief, but the belief that is very reason for their existence as a church. In the first vision Joseph asked God which church was true. God said none of them and that Joseph would found the true church. Without that vision there would be no Mormonism. You seem to want Mormonism to be Protestantism and get personally hurt when the Mormons push back against that desire. Your desire would destroy Mormonism.

I don't think the average LDS looks at me personally as "less than." It doesn't bother me that they look at Catholicism as "less than." Why? Because I don't need their validation for my beliefs. And I strongly believe that Christ's Church is the Catholic Church, not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or any other visible church. 

I wouldn't get personally upset about it at all. I would just say that you're wrong.

Yet you keep pushing your truth as thee Truth, even if you say you're not. If you really believed the bolded, then you wouldn't keep bringing this up. You'd probably just shrug and say, "well, what do I know, maybe you guys are right." But it's the opposite. You keep telling the LDS (and by extension, the Catholics, since we also claim exclusivity -- we don't even have open communion, but LDS do) that they are wrong about this.

Again, the bolded is your belief, not the belief of LDS or Catholics. You're trying to make us all Protestants. That's your right, of course, proselytize away! But make sure you do it knowing what you are doing and don't get personally hurt when people tell you they don't believe it. You are trying to convert us by telling us that things that we consider essential are actually not essential, that they are only appendages. I'm not upset that you are doing this. I'm a little mystified that you don't see what you are doing and that you get upset when the LDS assert their core claim of exceptionalism or exclusivity.

Thanks for you reply to several of my posts. I appreciate the time you took in so doing. I will do my best to respond in a manner that honors your time, yet clarifies some things.

In your first paragraph you seem to imply that I am or want my LDS church friends to be Protestant and that I get personally hurt when they push back against that desire. First, I am not Protestant. I have said many times on this forum that I am first and foremost a Christian, second an Evangelical, and third a Mennonite. You may not be aware that most Mennonites (not all) do not consider themselves members of the Protestant movement. Mennonites see themselves as Anabaptists, a group that sought to restore the church prior to the reformation and 300 years before the Saints. As many Mennonites were persecuted and martyred by Protestants as by Catholics in the very late 15th and early 16th centuries. Protestant and Catholic armies fought each other in Switzerland and the Anabaptists often found themselves in the middle, both literally and figuratively. Thousands of Mennonites were killed, mostly by drowning by both Protestant Reformers and Catholics who were resisting the reformation. Mennonites often do not look too kindly on either group to this very day. It is one reason they refer to themselves as a third way - or as the quiet in the land. Mennonites typically do not proselytize. Their missionary work is one of service, not conversion. I am neither a Protestant nor a proselytizer. I have never advocated for my LDS friends to change their religion because, as I have said many times on this forum I believe they are just fine from a salvific perspective just as they are. In this modern era, members of the LDS church who I know best are staunch advocates for and defenders of the atonement. I have heard more than several messages in our LDS ward on grace. I take no interest in imposing any of my beliefs on them. They already love snickerdoodles too!

Speaking of that, you seem to think that my comments about appendages are expressions of my own beliefs to which I am trying to convert both you and them. That is incorrect as well.  My comments about appendages were a paraphrase of a teaching (quote) made by Joseph Smith in one of his sermons where he famously said, “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.” (The boldings are not mine either). As I have heard it taught in our ward, he (Joseph) was emphasizing the primacy of the atonement, as was I. It was he who said "all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it." Not me. I do happen to agree with him at a high confidence level. I would guess that 95% of my LDS friends know I was quoting him. Perhaps you did not.

Again in the last paragraph you imply an incorrect belief that I identify as a Protestant. That is incorrect. What I was doing was quoting the first and foremost LDS prophet, not my own beliefs. I hope that helps you be a bit less mystified.

Finally and most importantly, I would dare say probably many folks here don't completely understand what it is that bothers me at times. I accept and own being bothered, but not in the sense that you imply. It is a bit more complicated. For example when you said on this forum as you have in your current reply to me and on other occasions that Catholics also believe they are the true church and are exclusive, I am not be bothered in any way. Quoting you, "I wouldn't get personally upset about it at all. I would just say you are wrong." I wouldn't even comment about it. Why is that? It is because I have no personal relationship with you, the Catholic Church, or with anyone at this point in my life who is Catholic. I often spend time with our parish priest. I spent hours on Monday with the diocesan administrator in our neighboring city chatting and seeking information from him. There are two very significant differences - that lack of relationships and my much higher regard for and closeness with the LDS faith than the Catholic church. Nothing in any of that is a criticism of you or your church; they are simply facts (the lack of relationships and my regard for the LDS church).

It is the personal associations, relationships, and caring that creates the "personal hurt" as you put it, in me. I don't know if you have any close personal acquaintances, friends, and mentors who are LDS? I do. Quite a few in fact. My closest friends right now are all members of the LDS church. When I fell last week it was my and my wife's LDS friends who offered a thousand acts of kindness to both of us. I play, work, worship, fellowship, laugh, joke, and cry with my LDS friends here. I have watched them die from the pervasive cancer that plagues them due to their agricultural lifetimes. We have sat with wives, sons, husbands, daughters, brothers and sisters who have lost loved ones - sometimes to death and occasionally to their loved ones' loss of faith in the church. We would do anything we could to help or console them as they would and have done for us. The one thing I wouldn't try to do is to convert them to my or any other faith. I truly believe they are just fine with the Savior as they are. They certainly need no help from me. They add a lot of exaltation aspects to that salvation that I don't understand yet, but that is ok. I think it is something like my concept of sanctification and probably much more, but I simply don't understand it.

The core element of what bothers me and what you missed completely is that I get really confused and frustrated when people who I care so deeply about give such different answers at different times about their faith, what is really important, and even what are the core tenets of it all. It makes my head spin. The debates and arguing on this forum make my head spin. Just this week on this forum several said that they have never heard any Saint express that they don't consider their Church a denomination! Huh? How can they consider their church to be the only true church in all of Cristendom and still consider it to be a denomination, one of many? That goes completely against what I assumed was a core belief (as you stated as well).

I get bothered and frustrated when I get confused. I get confused when our two former visiting teachers every week told us that they don't believe this or that, that their church teaches, especially about LDS exceptionalism. That is confusing. I get bothered and frustrated when our Sunday School teacher says one Sunday that my wife is one of the Godliest women he has ever seen, and then the next Sunday says "no offense, and don't take this personally, but she can't possibly have the gift of the Holy Spirit, because she doesn't have the correct baptism given by authority! Huh? Literally one Sunday after the other.

I get bothered and confused when someone says I gave a "good prayer," then says "but I wish they wouldn't let non-members pray." Then my beloved bishop says "that person is just wrong!" Huh? It is the very depth of the relationships we have with our LDS friends that makes it hurt when they tell us to "bring all we have and they will add the rest that we lack!" Huh? We faithfully clean the church on our Saturday, but are told "you can't be in charge of cleaning because we aren't members." Huh? It is all very confusing. This forum is often very confusing as well, especially when members go at each other.

So, I hope you have a better idea of about what we get bothered. As I said in a post yesterday or the day before, we are afflicted with the "go away closer" disease of family members who kind of belong, but are still reminded we are foster children who really don't belong.

OK. No more. I hope this helps you understand a bit better or deeper. If it doesn't, I don't know what more I can say. Perhaps the ease with which you dismiss the hurt tells me you have no close personal daily relationships with LDS folks. I may be wrong. I often am.

 

 

Edited May 13, 2022 by Navidad

[Navidad]

58 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

No.

So you didn't know that Islam is a denomination???   Cheesh! 

I mean they do have beliefs about Jesus don't they??

In fact they believe he was a great prophet, right? So there's a denomination!

I thought you were trying to give up sarcasm? 😃

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

I thought you were trying to give up sarcasm? 😃

Apparently anything is a "denomination".  If I am wrong please explain your definition.

Edited May 13, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Apparently anything is a "denomination".  If I am wrong please explain your definition.

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."

I also said "The LDS Church is certainly autonomous and it is a recognized branch. There you have it!" I also said I was being "lighthearted" about this and not to take my comments too seriously."

I was surprised, given my acceptance of the Oxford definition of "denomination" when several said they had never heard an objection from a Saint to the LDS church being considered a denomination. When I have used either a tree (with the LDS as a branch)  or forest (with the LDS as a tree)  metaphor here on this forum in the past - there have been rather vocal disagreement with both. I was assured the LDS are the entire tree or the forest depending on the preferred metaphor. Therefore this week I was confused by both Bluebell and you seemingly agreeing that you had never heard anyone deny the LDS Church is a "denomination." - definition courtesy of Oxford. I had come to the conclusion that it was a foregone conclusion that the LDS denied that they were a denomination within "the Christian Church." Hence my confusion.

Edited May 13, 2022 by Navidad