Dallas Jenkins Walking a Tightrope

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Hardly any trouble at all.  @Navidad how about you let us know what you and other good Christians think when you are told that Christianity went through a great apostasy and that your brand of Christianity has no authority and if you were baptized its no good and you need another one by and LDS priesthood holder for it to count.  Blueblee thinks this is all just milk toast and not disparaging at all.

I'm sorry if I was confusing.  I'll clarify--

Obviously there will be some who see that as disparaging.  There are some who believe that teaching that Jesus is the "way, the truth, and the life" is disparaging to all non-Christian religions.  There are those who believe that teaching the existence of absolute truth is disparaging to everyone who believes in relativism.   

These are those who believe that telling someone they are wrong = disparagement.

My point has always been that, while those people exist, I do not believe their opinion to be all that rational or reasonable, for reasons that I've already explained a few times.  I do not believe that disagreement is the same as disparagement.  I do not believe that me telling someone else what they believe is wrong, or them telling me what I believe is wrong, is disrespectful to those beliefs.

@MiserereNobis had a similar conversation with Navidad a couple of weeks ago, where he explained exactly why he, as a Catholic, does not view our beliefs on the apostasy or the need for priesthood authority the same way that he does, and Mis outlined where he thought Navidad's objections to us espousing those doctrines weren't very reasonable.  My views match Mis's--a Catholic--on the subject.

Edited June 2, 2022 by bluebell

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Hmm.  Not sure how I am sticking up for them. Just trying to illustrate how non LDS Christians may view the LDS position and find it offensive.

Whew!  I'm relieved!   I'm sorry I accused you of inconsistency!  No longer is the world wobbling on its axis, and things in the Universe have returned to their proper order.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Well sorry to disappoint my friend but I still mostly see religion as a man made device and the gods that religions want us to worship seem created in man's image and man not in God's image.  And while religion can do a lot of good I think it does a lot of damage. Especially conservative high demand religions. And I loathe what conservative evangelical Christianity has and is doing to the United States. 

Ah, well.  I'm neither surprised nor disappointed.  I don't expect anything different from you.  Why the caveat, though (see the bold)?

Edited June 2, 2022 by Kenngo1969

[Navidad]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

Hardly any trouble at all.  @Navidad how about you let us know what you and other good Christians think when you are told that Christianity went through a great apostasy and that your brand of Christianity has no authority and if you were baptized its no good and you need another one by and LDS priesthood holder for it to count.  Blueblee thinks this is all just milk toast and not disparaging at all.

Let me simply suggest there are doctrines and then there are doctrines. There are those that I could shrug off with no offense. There are also those that deprive me of my eternal destiny, inheritance, and endowment with the Godhead for eternity. For example my Mennonite faith believes in congregation-wide washing of feet as an ordinance to teach Christ-likeness and humility. The LDS used to (19th century)practice foot-washing, but don't seem to anymore except in rare circumstances. That doesn't bother me a bit. Mennonites are conscientious objectors by their doctrine. Folks disagreeing with that don't bother me a bit. I drink diet green tea. That doesn't seem to offend my LDS friends. These are to my understanding what Joseph Smith deemed appendages.

On the other hand, if my understanding of my dogma requires me to say that my LDS friends have no hope of eternal life as an endowment and inheritance, as long as they continue in their faith, that is at the very core of salvation (sanctification and exaltation). So yes, I think that would be a big deal and might even lead to my own judgment by Christ. Fortunately my personal faith does not require me to say that, so I don't. On the other hand my LDS friends seem to duty bound by their dogma (doctrine taken one step farther) to conclude the following about me:

I am a brother in Christ due to our spirit-child heritage, but I am an apostate, a child of the total then great apostasy, and have no hope of eternal life with Christ and Heavenly Father absent the ordinances of the LDS church.  One prominent LDS apostle and president said that all of my attempts at fulfilling my administrative ordination even within my own group, are blasphemy. So now I am guilty of both apostasy and blasphemy. In some faiths that calls for a death penalty. In the LDS church, I am given a death penalty, in the sense of spiritual death - no future inheritance of eternal life with the Father unless in this world or the next I become LDS in fact. I have never heard of an exception. Absent a formal commitment to the LDS in this life or the next, my eternal destiny is to live in a place without the abiding presence of the Father or Son. I might be tempted to deem that hell. It may not be fire and brimstone, but without the Godhead in residence, it is . . . well yes, a kind of hell - eternity in the chronic absence of the Godhead.

I am free to worship how, what, and where I wish, but I have no hope of the worship, faith, commitment, and covenants that I have engaged in ever being sufficient to effect my endowment - inheritance of eternal life with and in the presence of the Godhead. My LDS friends assure me that I can bring all my teachings when I come to them, and that they will add to them such as I lack. What? Why not say bring all your teachings and we will bring all ours, and we will add to each others? Then I would truly be Brother Navidad.

But no, my teachings are deficit, less than, insufficient for my own eternal destiny, so I and every other person who has ever lived, is reliant on the LDS to unlock the door to eternal life with their one of their keys and let me in. If my LDS friends said to me, "You know, we believe our understanding of the gospel is more complete than yours; we really do think our form of administration of ordinances  is more correct than yours; we really believe we have a more complete understanding of exaltation than you do," I would have no problem with that. I most likely would shrug it off. I am pretty sure there are those who have a more advanced understanding of spiritual things than I do. In fact, I am certain of it.

However, they don't say any of that. They say to me "We have exclusive priesthood power - one of a kind - the only kind that God accepts." They assure me "The entire church went apostate in a great apostasy. Christ chose us exclusively to restore His church and overcome the apostasy. You are a nice guy, and we respect your sincerity, but you are also an apostate in need of our restored gospel. No offense, it is nothing personal, but without us you have no full and complete salvation, no sanctification (exaltation), no future eternity in the presence of the Godhead, but a wonderful potential and possibility to minister to those of us who become as God because of the plan made possible by God, exclusively through the authority and power of our church. Of course we know that if you fail in this life to see the light, you will see it and accept it on the other side of the veil. That just makes sense. Everyone will. Won't that be wonderful?"

So, how do I properly react to that? It does seem a bit more important that foot-washing, doesn't it? The easiest thing for me to say, is "Well, simply let me share my testimony with you! Maybe you will change your mind about me when you get to know me better." You might then smile, and say "Sure go ahead, I would love to hear your testimony. But if I can't agree with it, just please remember. . . .  It's nothing personal!"

 

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm sorry if I was confusing.  I'll clarify--

Obviously there will be some who see that as disparaging.  There are some who believe that teaching that Jesus is the "way, the truth, and the life" is disparaging to all non-Christian religions.  There are those who believe that teaching the existence of absolute truth is disparaging to everyone who believes in relativism.   

These are those who believe that telling someone they are wrong = disparagement.

My point has always been that, while those people exist, I do not believe their opinion to be all that rational or reasonable, for reasons that I've already explained a few times.  I do not believe that disagreement is the same as disparagement.  I do not believe that me telling someone else what they believe is wrong, or them telling me what I believe is wrong, is disrespectful to those beliefs.

@MiserereNobis had a similar conversation with Navidad a couple of weeks ago, where he explained exactly why he, as a Catholic, does not view our beliefs on the apostasy or the need for priesthood authority the same way that he does, and Mis outlined where he thought Navidad's objections to us espousing those doctrines weren't very reasonable.  My views match Mis's--a Catholic--on the subject.

Since you just got very personal in singling me out, please let me comment:

There is one huge difference between @MiserereNobis and me. It has nothing to do with our respective faiths. As far as I can tell from listening to his posts over the years, he does not love any of the LDS people he asks or talks about. He has not invested five years of his spiritual practice, worship, and fellowship full-time with the LDS in an LDS ward. He probably (of course I may be wrong) has never cried at an LDS funeral, mourned over a lost dear friend, or had his wife mocked in front of a group of folks for the absence of the Holy Spirit in her life. He safely takes communion in a Catholic church with no potential negative examination, except perhaps from God Himself if he takes unworthily.

He has never been told he pretends at worship by someone he deemed a friend. I have experienced each and all of those. They are deeply personal and significant to me. A deep offense by a total stranger is easily forgotten. One by a beloved friend . . . perhaps not so easy to laugh at and simply walk away. My wife and I firmly believe God has led us to invest ourselves, time, and gifts in a relationship with the LDS people of our community, in some ways since 1989. @MiserereNobismay not consider my objections to be very reasonable. Only he can speak to that. But, he has no idea of the personal depth of our relationship to the LDS people. It appears you don't either!

Edited June 2, 2022 by Navidad

[MiserereNobis]

14 minutes ago, Navidad said:

So, how do I properly react to that? It does seem a bit more important that foot-washing, doesn't it? The easiest thing for me to say, is "Well, simply let me share my testimony with you! Maybe you will change your mind about me when you get to know me better." You might then smile, and say "Sure go ahead, I would love to hear your testimony. But if I can't agree with it, just please remember. . . .  It's nothing personal!"

But it's not about you, Navidad. It's about the doctrines of who has priesthood authority and who doesn't. This is CORE (not appendage) to both LDS and Catholic beliefs.  I know you can quote Joseph Smith about appendages, but that one statement of his does not constitute LDS belief.

If you share your testimony with them, and they decide, "hey, because of what Navidad said, I change my mind, the LDS no longer is the only church with God's authoritative priesthood" then you have converted them away from Mormonism.

So I say, just shrug it off and say to yourself, "they are wrong about me and about Christianity."

20 minutes ago, Navidad said:

One prominent LDS apostle and president said that all of my attempts at fulfilling my administrative ordination even within my own group, are blasphemy. So now I am guilty of both apostasy and blasphemy.

Do you believe you are guilty of apostasy and blasphemy? If not, who cares what the LDS apostle said? If the actions, saying, and beliefs of the LDS hurt you so, I suggest you should remove yourself from the hurt. It seems strange that you continue to go to LDS church all these years while continuously pointing out how their beliefs hurt you. That seems... masochistic? If you don't believe them, why subject yourself to them? Instead, you want to change them to your beliefs. Accept the LDS as they are: exclusivists.

I guess it's easy for me to say this because my faith has exclusive claims, too. But come to think of it, everyone's religious beliefs are exclusive.

What do you say to a muslim who tells you that Jesus was only a prophet?

[MiserereNobis]

12 minutes ago, Navidad said:

As far as I can tell from listening to his posts over the years, he does not love any of the LDS people he asks or talks about.

Well, it depends on your definition of love. It does seem harsh to say that I do not love LDS folk.

13 minutes ago, Navidad said:

He has not invested five years of his spiritual practice, worship, and fellowship full-time with the LDS in an LDS ward. He probably (of course I may be wrong) has never cried at an LDS funeral, mourned over a lost dear friend, or had his wife mocked in front of a group of folks for the absence of the Holy Spirit in her life.

This is true. I am a Catholic, not a Mormon. It wouldn't make any sense for me to invest years of spiritual practice, worship, and fellowship with the LDS. In fact, that would be like a denial of my Catholic faith. I should practice and worship as a Catholic, not a Mormon.

14 minutes ago, Navidad said:

He safely takes communion in a Catholic church with no potential negative examination, except perhaps from God Himself if he takes unworthily.

This is because my faith tells me to receive Catholic communion. I do bristle a bit at the connotation of the word "safely" here, as if it is something wrong or not-quite-as-good-or-heroic.

 

[MiserereNobis]

24 minutes ago, Navidad said:

He probably (of course I may be wrong) has never cried at an LDS funeral, mourned over a lost dear friend, or had his wife mocked in front of a group of folks for the absence of the Holy Spirit in her life.

I guess I'll add that if I was hanging with people who I loved and considered dear close friends, and they mocked me about my life and religion, I might reevaluate how close of friends they actually are.

I have many dear close friends who think I'm whacko for being Catholic (remember, I come from a pretty hard-core hippie background). They don't make fun of me and they treat me just like they did back in the ol' days before I was Catholic. I know they believe I'm on the wrong path, but I focus on how they treat me, not what they believe. And vice-versa. They know I want them to be Catholic, but they focus on how I treat them, not what I believe.

I don't need my friends to believe the same way I do in order for them to be my friends and for me to love them. I need them to treat me with love and respect, like friends, though. The focus is on action, not belief (especially when it deals with religious belief).

[Navidad]

8 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Well, it depends on your definition of love. It does seem harsh to say that I do not love LDS folk.

This is true. I am a Catholic, not a Mormon. It wouldn't make any sense for me to invest years of spiritual practice, worship, and fellowship with the LDS. In fact, that would be like a denial of my Catholic faith. I should practice and worship as a Catholic, not a Mormon.

This is because my faith tells me to receive Catholic communion. I do bristle a bit at the connotation of the word "safely" here, as if it is something wrong or not-quite-as-good-or-heroic.

 

I am talking about personal and intimate relationships over time. That kind of love.

I am speaking of "safely" in the connotation of not having those around you not mock you for your participation.

Sorry you got triangulated into this. That wasn't fair to you. We have our own reasons for attending an LDS ward. Being allowed to participate in the sacrament was one of them. That is important to us. Anyway, you do as you should. We will figure this out outside of this forum. Best wishes.

[Navidad]

28 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

What do you say to a muslim who tells you that Jesus was only a prophet?

I don't say anything to him. I have no need to do so. I have only had one Muslim friend in my life to whom I was close enough to discuss our respective faiths. I loved getting to know him and his family in northwestern Nigeria. It was the highlight of my time there.

[Navidad]

17 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I guess I'll add that if I was hanging with people who I loved and considered dear close friends, and they mocked me about my life and religion, I might reevaluate how close of friends they actually are.

I have many dear close friends who think I'm whacko for being Catholic (remember, I come from a pretty hard-core hippie background). They don't make fun of me and they treat me just like they did back in the ol' days before I was Catholic. I know they believe I'm on the wrong path, but I focus on how they treat me, not what they believe. And vice-versa. They know I want them to be Catholic, but they focus on how I treat them, not what I believe.

I don't need my friends to believe the same way I do in order for them to be my friends and for me to love them. I need them to treat me with love and respect, like friends, though. The focus is on action, not belief (especially when it deals with religious belief).

You are correct. Perhaps what you hear in my posts is the angst of that constant reevaluation.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

On the other hand, if my understanding of my dogma requires me to say that my LDS friends have no hope of eternal life as an endowment and inheritance, as long as they continue in their faith, that is at the very core of salvation (sanctification and exaltation).

You can't see that personally becoming a GOD on the same "level" as our Lord, is not the same as "immortality in heaven, worshipping the beatific vision"?

I think this issue is THE central issue of this continuing comparisons of the church.

I would love it if you clearly and finally expressed your views on the fullest rewards available to one as righteous as is humanly possible, as exemplified by Christ, so that we might have a shot at resolving this.

[mfbukowski]

@MiserereNobis

Quote:

"I have many dear close friends who think I'm whacko for being Catholic (remember, I come from a pretty hard-core hippie background)."

I totally get it, changing one word to "LDS", and including my biological family. Polish people just don't leave Catholicism.

We're talking hellfire probably.

But all I have left behind, imo, is bad 12th century philosophy.

I still believe it all, worded differently.

It's the same experienced "reality".

 

Edited June 2, 2022 by mfbukowski
Error

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Whew!  I'm relieved!   I'm sorry I accused you of inconsistency!  No longer is the world wobbling on its axis, and things in the Universe have returned to their proper order.

Ah, well.  I'm neither surprised nor disappointed.  I don't expect anything different from you.  Why the caveat, though (see the bold)?

Well thank you. I have come to appreciate your posts and sense of humor.  Honestly I do want to believe at least in something.  But I have to be honest to myself as well.  I do miss the certainty I once had.  On the other hand exploring without such certainty is an adventure as well.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Let me simply suggest there are doctrines and then there are doctrines. There are those that I could shrug off with no offense. There are also those that deprive me of my eternal destiny, inheritance, and endowment with the Godhead for eternity. For example my Mennonite faith believes in congregation-wide washing of feet as an ordinance to teach Christ-likeness and humility. The LDS used to (19th century)practice foot-washing, but don't seem to anymore except in rare circumstances. That doesn't bother me a bit. Mennonites are conscientious objectors by their doctrine. Folks disagreeing with that don't bother me a bit. I drink diet green tea. That doesn't seem to offend my LDS friends. These are to my understanding what Joseph Smith deemed appendages.

On the other hand, if my understanding of my dogma requires me to say that my LDS friends have no hope of eternal life as an endowment and inheritance, as long as they continue in their faith, that is at the very core of salvation (sanctification and exaltation). So yes, I think that would be a big deal and might even lead to my own judgment by Christ. Fortunately my personal faith does not require me to say that, so I don't. On the other hand my LDS friends seem to duty bound by their dogma (doctrine taken one step farther) to conclude the following about me:

I am a brother in Christ due to our spirit-child heritage, but I am an apostate, a child of the total then great apostasy, and have no hope of eternal life with Christ and Heavenly Father absent the ordinances of the LDS church.  One prominent LDS apostle and president said that all of my attempts at fulfilling my administrative ordination even within my own group, are blasphemy. So now I am guilty of both apostasy and blasphemy. In some faiths that calls for a death penalty. In the LDS church, I am given a death penalty, in the sense of spiritual death - no future inheritance of eternal life with the Father unless in this world or the next I become LDS in fact. I have never heard of an exception. Absent a formal commitment to the LDS in this life or the next, my eternal destiny is to live in a place without the abiding presence of the Father or Son. I might be tempted to deem that hell. It may not be fire and brimstone, but without the Godhead in residence, it is . . . well yes, a kind of hell - eternity in the chronic absence of the Godhead.

I am free to worship how, what, and where I wish, but I have no hope of the worship, faith, commitment, and covenants that I have engaged in ever being sufficient to effect my endowment - inheritance of eternal life with and in the presence of the Godhead. My LDS friends assure me that I can bring all my teachings when I come to them, and that they will add to them such as I lack. What? Why not say bring all your teachings and we will bring all ours, and we will add to each others? Then I would truly be Brother Navidad.

But no, my teachings are deficit, less than, insufficient for my own eternal destiny, so I and every other person who has ever lived, is reliant on the LDS to unlock the door to eternal life with their one of their keys and let me in. If my LDS friends said to me, "You know, we believe our understanding of the gospel is more complete than yours; we really do think our form of administration of ordinances  is more correct than yours; we really believe we have a more complete understanding of exaltation than you do," I would have no problem with that. I most likely would shrug it off. I am pretty sure there are those who have a more advanced understanding of spiritual things than I do. In fact, I am certain of it.

However, they don't say any of that. They say to me "We have exclusive priesthood power - one of a kind - the only kind that God accepts." They assure me "The entire church went apostate in a great apostasy. Christ chose us exclusively to restore His church and overcome the apostasy. You are a nice guy, and we respect your sincerity, but you are also an apostate in need of our restored gospel. No offense, it is nothing personal, but without us you have no full and complete salvation, no sanctification (exaltation), no future eternity in the presence of the Godhead, but a wonderful potential and possibility to minister to those of us who become as God because of the plan made possible by God, exclusively through the authority and power of our church. Of course we know that if you fail in this life to see the light, you will see it and accept it on the other side of the veil. That just makes sense. Everyone will. Won't that be wonderful?"

So, how do I properly react to that? It does seem a bit more important that foot-washing, doesn't it? The easiest thing for me to say, is "Well, simply let me share my testimony with you! Maybe you will change your mind about me when you get to know me better." You might then smile, and say "Sure go ahead, I would love to hear your testimony. But if I can't agree with it, just please remember. . . .  It's nothing personal!"

 

Thank you for your very thoughtful response.  You are someone I would very much enjoy sitting down with in person and discussing such things.

[webbles]

15 hours ago, Teancum said:

Hardly any trouble at all.  @Navidad how about you let us know what you and other good Christians think when you are told that Christianity went through a great apostasy and that your brand of Christianity has no authority and if you were baptized its no good and you need another one by and LDS priesthood holder for it to count.  Blueblee thinks this is all just milk toast and not disparaging at all.

But isn't this similar to what other Christian sects do to LDS?  Per a Catholic friend, the Catholic doctrine says that the LDS baptism is invalid.  If I converted to Catholicsm, I would have to rebaptize whereas many other Christian sects wouldn't have to rebaptize.  I also will not get to heaven because of my invalid baptism.  I've also been told by other friends in other Christian sects that I'm going to hell because I don't believe in the correct Jesus.  I understand that is their beliefs and I let them believe it.  I've had heated debates with them over whether my beliefs are valid or not.  I don't see them disparaging me.

Edited June 3, 2022 by webbles

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Navidad said:

 In the LDS church, I am given a death penalty, in the sense of spiritual death - no future inheritance of eternal life with the Father unless in this world or the next I become LDS in fact

Totally innacurate.  Yet again I cannot imagine how you could attend church for 5 years and yet think this.

It is so sad.  You must read from Gospel Principles as a start.

Unfathomabley sad.

[Teancum]

8 hours ago, webbles said:

But isn't this similar to what other Christian sects do to LDS?

Yes. I have not argues that other sects are not highly critical of the the church and have noted they can be quite disparaging.

 

8 hours ago, webbles said:

 

  Per a Catholic friend, the Catholic doctrine says that the LDS baptism is invalid.  If I converted to Catholicsm, I would have to rebaptize whereas many other Christian sects wouldn't have to rebaptize. 

Yes.  And Catholics actually do accept other sects baptisms but not ours.  Mainly this is because we do not accept the historic Christian creeds and the version of the Godhead that comes from them.

8 hours ago, webbles said:

 

 

I also will not get to heaven because of my invalid baptism.  I've also been told by other friends in other Christian sects that I'm going to hell because I don't believe in the correct Jesus.  I understand that is their beliefs and I let them believe it.  I've had heated debates with them over whether my beliefs are valid or not.  I don't see them disparaging me.

Great.  Good for you.

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Totally innacurate.  Yet again I cannot imagine how you could attend church for 5 years and yet think this.

It is so sad.  You must read from Gospel Principles as a start.

Unfathomabley sad.

Can Navidad be in the presence of the Father if he does not accept and LDS baptism and Temple ordinances?  Nope.  To him this could be a form of spiritual death.  

[Navidad]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Totally innacurate.  Yet again I cannot imagine how you could attend church for 5 years and yet think this.

It is so sad.  You must read from Gospel Principles as a start.

Unfathomabley sad.

I invite you and welcome you and anyone else to have a completely rational and pragmatic engagement with me on my post. No mocking, no broad general statements from either of us. No assigning intent that doesn't exist. Point by point, I welcome an opportunity to specifically speak to what I have written and to define terms I have used by my own understanding of them. Don't be sad . . . be a friend who will tell me specifically where I am wrong in what I am saying. You once said to me that you enjoy rational debate. So do I. I detest however broad generalizations and adhominem conversations. Please don't tell me I had typos; I stipulate to that.

I say what I said with provisional certitude. I would be happy to be wrong. That would frankly take a load off of both my and my wife's shoulders. Just please don't broad brush it,nor tell me what I, or other Evangelicals believe. Be specific. I will do my best to respond my best using my understanding of my own language and intent. Do you have any thoughts about what would facilitate a positive and healthy dialogue between us? Please let me know. Your first comment is broadly sweeping - "Totally inaccurate." Wow, that is some start! I will be in and out of the house most of today. Not at all this morning. I have to run to NCG.

Perhaps you could start with telling me how, and under what circumstances  I and/or my wife will be welcomed to the Celestial Kingdom for eternity where the Godhead will dwell (for eternity) with no assistance, involvement, or engagement with specific LDS ordinances, covenants, and practices. That is the key issue for me in all that I say. The underlying assumption of my post was that in neither this life or the next will I assent to or seek spiritual standing via any LDS ordinance. I will come to Christ "just as I am." Second, my underlying assumption is that spiritual death is life for eternity absent the presence, teaching, and worship of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Call that hell, Terrestial, or Telestial, or "spiritual death" or whatever term you want. Should we start there? Or would you like to start somewhere else? Thanks.

[Navidad]

8 hours ago, webbles said:

But isn't this similar to what other Christian sects do to LDS?  Per a Catholic friend, the Catholic doctrine says that the LDS baptism is invalid.  If I converted to Catholicsm, I would have to rebaptize whereas many other Christian sects wouldn't have to rebaptize.  I also will not get to heaven because of my invalid baptism.  I've also been told by other friends in other Christian sects that I'm going to hell because I don't believe in the correct Jesus.  I understand that is their beliefs and I let them believe it.  I've had heated debates with them over whether my beliefs are valid or not.  I don't see them disparaging me.

I am not responsible for any other Christian sects. You have never read me say any of those things. This is about me and my personal spiritual destiny. I have said it many times on this forum and in public. I believe that many LDS folks are truly Christian. I have never had a heated debate with anyone from the LDS Church about anything. Maybe I have gotten close with one or two on this forum, but that is it. Never in person. The "other Christian sects" you mention are a broad and diverse community. You cannot in accuracy, generalize much of anything about them beyond a commitment to the atonement of Christ.

[MiserereNobis]

50 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Perhaps you could start with telling me how, and under what circumstances I and/or my wife will be welcomed to the Celestial Kingdom

Do you believe in the celestial kingdom? (And the telestial and terrestial?) If so, you believe in a doctrine unique to Mormonism and should probably receive LDS baptism and do the other stuff to get there. If you don’t believe in it, then why do you care if they say you’re not going there since it doesn’t exist anyway?

[Kenngo1969]

15 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well thank you. I have come to appreciate your posts and sense of humor.  Honestly I do want to believe at least in something.  But I have to be honest to myself as well.  I do miss the certainty I once had.  On the other hand exploring without such certainty is an adventure as well.

I think you might be surprised if I were to confide in you the myriad things about which I am not certain ... in fact, there are a rather large number of things about which I am not certain at all.  It is simply that, even in the face of such uncertainty, I choose to not allow the (surprising to you, I'm sure) few things about which I am certain to be held hostage to the many, many things about which which I am not certain.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 hours ago, webbles said:

But isn't this similar to what other Christian sects do to LDS?  Per a Catholic friend, the Catholic doctrine says that the LDS baptism is invalid.  If I converted to Catholicsm, I would have to rebaptize whereas many other Christian sects wouldn't have to rebaptize.  I also will not get to heaven because of my invalid baptism.  I've also been told by other friends in other Christian sects that I'm going to hell because I don't believe in the correct Jesus.  I understand that is their beliefs and I let them believe it.  I've had heated debates with them over whether my beliefs are valid or not.  I don't see them disparaging me.

Exactly. And when someone says Latter-day Saints aren’t Christians that is not disparagement either. Merely stating facts from their point of view. 

Edited June 3, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Chum]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I am not responsible for any other Christian sects.

I have an alternative perspective. I choose to be a Church member and it's history is my history. If I am to take pride in historical/current Church accomplishments, any mistakes are equally mine to own. That I did not personally participate isn't relevant to a discussion where those things are on the table.

One reason is that effective truths lie in the nuances, in the good+bad of a thing. Another is that I can't effect change where I disconnect myself from the problem.

More recently, I have been considering another notion. Because we Church members claim Christianity, we ought to be consistent and claim it in a holistic way. I'm still chewing on that idea.

[Kenngo1969]

11 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Exactly. And when someone says Latter-day Saints aren’t Christians that is not disparagement either. Merely stating facts from their point of view. 

I think arguing points of doctrine, though, is rather different than concocting one's own idiosyncratic, arbitrary definition of the word Christian and using it as a brickbat to beat up other Christians.  There are plenty of things about which I disagree with Miserere Nobis, 3DOP, and, for that matter, Navidad.  However, by no reasonable definition are people such as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (see what I did there?  ), or Miserere Nobis, or 3DOP, or Navidad who strive to follow and to serve the Master and who believe that He is their (our) Savior not Christian.