Popular Post MrShorty Posted June 3, 2022 Popular Post Posted June 3, 2022 8 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: 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. Several years ago while contemplating the "Are Mormons Christian?" question, I put "Are Catholics Christian?" into my favorite search engine. Naturally, the results pulled up several Protestant counter cult ministries arguing very strongly that Catholics are not Christians (usually for reasons rooted in one or more of the 5 Solae as if those are the final arbiters of what it means to be Christian). To be fair, I put, "Are Protestants Christian?" in next, and got some Catholic sites that argued that they are not. I see the kinds of things @Teancum posted, and, in the end, I feel like I see the same thing -- a bunch of petty reasons to try to argue that "others" are not real Christians, but "we" are the genuine article. At some point I've reached the conclusion that the question of who is and is not truly Christian is just not a worthwhile pursuit. 6
SeekingUnderstanding Posted June 3, 2022 Posted June 3, 2022 22 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: 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. Maybe according to your definition. In my opinion no reasonable person would consign someone to celibacy because they are gay, so not everyone defines reasonable the same way. 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted June 3, 2022 Posted June 3, 2022 (edited) 38 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: I think arguing points of doctrine, though, is rather different than concocting one's own idiosyncratic, arbitrary definition of the word <snip> Further, I would argue that arguing points of doctrine is exactly the same as concocting own’s own idiosyncratic arbitrary definition. So there is that too. “Well when we say non Latter-day Saints go to hell, we are using our own idiosyncratic and arbitrary definition” Edited June 3, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding
mfbukowski Posted June 3, 2022 Posted June 3, 2022 2 hours ago, Teancum said: 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. After death when he clearly sees the alternatives, he will pick the best option for himself. Surely you know about the missionaries on the other side??? Why do you think they are there and what is the purpose of temple work during the millennium??? It has been said that virtually NO ONE will experience spiritual death- there will be no hell, and outer darkness may have like 15 people in it from all human history
mfbukowski Posted June 3, 2022 Posted June 3, 2022 11 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Further, I would argue that arguing points of doctrine is exactly the same as concocting own’s own idiosyncratic arbitrary definition. So there is that too. “Well when we say non Latter-day Saints go to hell, we are using our own idiosyncratic and arbitrary definition” Hell is spirit prison, a holding tank for those undecided or not ready for advancement to paradise It's PURGATORY. No fire, no burning, missionaries everywhere 2
Popular Post MiserereNobis Posted June 3, 2022 Popular Post Posted June 3, 2022 8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: It's PURGATORY. No fire, no burning What kind of lame purgatory is that? Do I need to send you a copy of Dante's Purgatorio? 5
mfbukowski Posted June 3, 2022 Posted June 3, 2022 2 hours ago, Navidad said: 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. You will die. A new world opens up. It may not be as you imagined, but as we imagine. If so, the missionaries will find you. Your proxy ordinances will be done if and only if you want them. We believe it is 99 percent sure virtually everyone will see the advantages and what is true. Easy and merciful. God loves you.
mfbukowski Posted June 3, 2022 Posted June 3, 2022 (edited) 5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Please let me know. Your first comment is broadly sweeping - "Totally inaccurate." Wow, that is some start! It was innacurate LDS Doctrine that's all. Not sure why that would be offensive, sorry. See above posts. It would be like me asking you about Kant's synthetic priori and you making a stab at what clearly you do not understand and me answering with a chuckle "Totally innacurate " Edited June 3, 2022 by mfbukowski
Kenngo1969 Posted June 3, 2022 Posted June 3, 2022 1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Maybe according to your definition. In my opinion no reasonable person would consign someone to celibacy because they are gay, so not everyone defines reasonable the same way. I'm confused: Are you arguing (or perhaps better said, would you argue) that 3DOP, Miserere Nobis, Navidad, and faithful Latter-day Saints who believe that Christ is their [our] Savior and who strive earnestly to follow the Master are not Christian? The celibacy issue is a red herring. As for any test of reasonableness and the applicability of any given test of reasonableness, see Isaiah 55:8-9. (Also, that scripture explains why the celibacy issue is a red herring.)
Kenngo1969 Posted June 3, 2022 Posted June 3, 2022 1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Further, I would argue that arguing points of doctrine is exactly the same as concocting own’s own idiosyncratic arbitrary definition. So there is that too. “Well when we say non Latter-day Saints go to hell, we are using our own idiosyncratic and arbitrary definition” Regarding your second paragraph, Latter-day Saints don't say that, so your point is moot.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted June 3, 2022 Posted June 3, 2022 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: Hell is spirit prison, a holding tank for those undecided or not ready for advancement to paradise It's PURGATORY. No fire, no burning, missionaries everywhere Exactly. That is your idiosyncratic, arbitrary definition of the word.
pogi Posted June 3, 2022 Posted June 3, 2022 (edited) 22 hours ago, Navidad said: 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. Spiritual death, as understood by Latter-day Saints, means separation from God. Because Jesus Christ is God, one is not spiritually dead if he is present with Christ and abides with Him, nor in the presence of the Holly Ghost. Spiritual death is what would have happened if Christ did not atone for the fall of Adam. Outer-darkness. Hell. That is spiritual death. Quote History of the Church quotes the following statement from Joseph Smith: “A man may be saved, after the judgment, in the terrestrial kingdom, or in the telestial kingdom, but he can never see the celestial kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit” (1:283). Quote 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. First, it has nothing to do with a formal commitment to Latter-day Saints, it has to do with a covenant with God of which He sets the parameters - not us. If I came to find out in the next life that my baptism in mortality was not valid in the eyes of God, and in God's good mercy held it not against me because of my faith in Him and life of service, but offered me a chance to be present with him for eternity via baptism by proxy of one in authority - what could keep me from being present with God but my own pride? If I knew it was God's will and I refuse the cup...that is on me - no one else. Please don't get defensive and accuse me of judging you of pride. That is not what I am saying. I don't believe it is your pride that is keeping you from baptism. I believe it is an honest misunderstanding. According to our faith, there will be no misunderstanding for either of us in the end. At that point, it will only be our pride that separates us from God. Second, as I have already pointed out, it is an incorrect understanding of our doctrine to say that you cannot abide then presence of the Son (God) without baptism. To equate such a glorious heaven with "hell", when Christ's presence fills it with the glory of God - I would call that an unfair assessment of our beliefs of the next life. Edited June 3, 2022 by pogi 2
SeekingUnderstanding Posted June 3, 2022 Posted June 3, 2022 53 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: Regarding your second paragraph, Latter-day Saints don't say that, so your point is moot. If only there was a church authorized source for hell. Oh wait there is and I linked to it upthread: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/hell?lang=eng Latter-day revelations speak of hell in at least two ways. First, it is another name for spirit prison, a temporary place in the postmortal world for those who died without a knowledge of the truth or those who were disobedient in mortality.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted June 3, 2022 Posted June 3, 2022 1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said: I'm confused: Are you arguing (or perhaps better said, would you argue) that 3DOP, Miserere Nobis, Navidad, and faithful Latter-day Saints who believe that Christ is their [our] Savior and who strive earnestly to follow the Master are not Christian? Nope. But those that do so define the word differently than you.
manol Posted June 3, 2022 Posted June 3, 2022 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: You will die. A new world opens up. It may not be as you imagined, but as we imagined. Do you personally attribute any validity or value to accounts of near-death experiences?
Calm Posted June 3, 2022 Posted June 3, 2022 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: so, the missionaries will find you. And they will likely not be from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but the Church of the Firstborn (the real one, not the distorted version). https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/topic/church-of-the-firstborn 2
Navidad Posted June 3, 2022 Posted June 3, 2022 4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: 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? You have asked me why I care in one form or another on several occasions. What I am not sure about is why you care whether or not I care? How or in what way am I responsible to you about what I choose to care about? I am not you. You have not had my life's journey. You are not me. I don't think I look at faith in the same way you do. That is not a criticism. It just seems to me to be a fact. I provide monthly ayudas (helps) to the many poor Catholic families of my village. Why do I care about them when I don't believe what they believe? My answer is, "I care . . . I just do." Why do I take my time to be with our local parish priest who has cancer when I don't believe what he does and he probably wouldn't serve me communion? My answer is," I care about him . . . I just do." He spends so much time alone. My heart goes out to him. Why do I care? . . . . I just do. You are not me. The fact that you are a regular on a forum that is predominantly about a faith that you do not believe in, tells me you might be more like me than it appears. With my mind, I don't care. With my heart I care deeply. I am a participant in this forum from my heart. I attend the ward from my heart. My mind and my heart are often in conflict about things. I was raised in a home that had no heart. I have been trying to strengthen my heart my entire adult life. I don't think I will stop now. Best wishes.
mfbukowski Posted June 3, 2022 Posted June 3, 2022 1 hour ago, Calm said: And they will likely not be from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but the Church of the Firstborn (the real one, not the distorted version). https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/topic/church-of-the-firstborn Thanks for the reference
mfbukowski Posted June 3, 2022 Posted June 3, 2022 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Navidad said: Why do I take my time to be with our local parish priest who has cancer when I don't believe what he does and he probably wouldn't serve me communion? Like our temple, non-Catholics do not receive the Eucharist. He is prohibited from doing so. Catholics are not Mennonites, it is not an insult if he would pass you by for communion. Edited June 3, 2022 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted June 3, 2022 Posted June 3, 2022 1 hour ago, manol said: Do you personally attribute any validity or value to accounts of near-death experiences? Of course. 1
mfbukowski Posted June 3, 2022 Posted June 3, 2022 2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Exactly. That is your idiosyncratic, arbitrary definition of the word. Nope 1
mfbukowski Posted June 3, 2022 Posted June 3, 2022 (edited) 7 hours ago, Navidad said: 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. It appears I cannot respond to you without offending you. I hope you use church sources like Gospel Principles to learn about our faith, and not others who appear to be innacurate. 06195_eng.pdf The Lord gives us the heaven we believe IS heaven, in my opinion. He gives us the "best" we believe we deserve. Our own decisions limit us or allow for blessings beyond our anything we can imagine. We become "all we CAN be", and that includes ALL of what we have covenanted and believe we can be. It is faith. You cannot be healed without thinking it is possible. Edited June 3, 2022 by mfbukowski 2
Teancum Posted June 3, 2022 Posted June 3, 2022 4 hours ago, mfbukowski said: After death when he clearly sees the alternatives, he will pick the best option for himself. Are you sure that based on LDS doctrine those who were not baptized LDS etc will have more knowledge on which to make a decision? I don't recall that being taught. If that is the case then who wouldn't accept the LDS ordinances assuming they are the correct ones? What do those in "Spirit Prison" really know? Maybe their "veil" has not been totally lifted. 4 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Surely you know about the missionaries on the other side??? Of course I do.😏 4 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Why do you think they are there and what is the purpose of temple work during the millennium??? Dude, I know all about this. You are begging the question. 4 hours ago, mfbukowski said: It has been said that virtually NO ONE will experience spiritual death- there will be no hell, and outer darkness may have like 15 people in it from all human history Define spiritual death. My understanding is it is separation from God. So anyone not in the Celestial Kingdom suffers a form of spiritual death. It is NOT defined as only being a SoP.
Navidad Posted June 3, 2022 Posted June 3, 2022 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: You will die. A new world opens up. It may not be as you imagined, but as we imagine. If so, the missionaries will find you. Your proxy ordinances will be done if and only if you want them. We believe it is 99 percent sure virtually everyone will see the advantages and what is true. Easy and merciful. God loves you. Your reply helps me a bit to understand why we so often speak past each other. I regret that. It seems you are of the opinion that I am trying to parrot LDS doctrine back to you like a student writing a paper on Berkeley's Positive Idealism. That is not my intent at all. I am endeavoring to interpret LDS doctrine through the filters of my own hermeneutic. That is the only way LDS doctrine can have significance for me. I apply it to my own beliefs and make decisions based on it. It is an interactive process, not a "read this book about it . . . write an essay on the book . . . and you Mark will grade the essay. I know you must understand this because over the years you have often interpreted to me what Evangelicals believe through the filters of your personal experience and your LDS beliefs. Accept that I interpret back to you my conclusions based on my understanding of LDS doctrine. If in that I mistake a point of fact, please correct me. If you don't like my conclusions, but my facts are correct doctrinally, then just say you don't like my conclusions. My conclusions are based on the following understanding of LDS doctrine: 1. God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost will dwell on a permanent basis in eternity in the Celestial Kingdom. The Son and/or the Holy Ghost may visit one or the other of the other levels once in a while. The Father - never. 2. The only way to access the Celestial Kingdom for eternity is to accept LDS ordinances - if I want to. In the absence of that I will not end up for eternity where God the Father dwells exclusively and where the Father and Son dwell permanently with occasional visits to one or the other of the lesser two. It is unlikely Christ will ever visit the third. 3. I will never enter the Celestial Kingdom without accepting LDS ordinances in this world or the next. 4. The LDS believe that 99% of non-LDS member dead people will see the advantages and accept the ordinances to secure the keys to the gate of the Celestial Kingdom (the last part is a meaphor). Let's just leave it at that for now? Is what I just typed totally incorrect, mostly incorrect, or ???????? Now for my beliefs that impact my decision making and thoughts. I am not stating these to obtain your approval of them. These are my beliefs and are not subject to you giving them a passing or failing grade. I invite your comment, but not your critique of them. I have not critiqued any of your beliefs in the four points above.: 1. Spiritual death is eternity without the mentorship, worship, teaching, and fellowshipping with the Godhead (Father, Son and Holy Ghost. 2. There will be no denominations of an old earthly nature in either the spirit world or eternity. Humanity will not be divided up into those who spend eternity with God and those who won't until after the judgment seat of Christ. We will be judged individually on a list of criteria which we do not today fully understand or appreciate. It seems that both light, faith, and perseverance have a lot to do with that judgment. Earthly ordinances have nothing to do with that final judgment - nothing. 3. Since I believe in #2; I will have no opportunity to accept LDS ordinances after death. My only opportunity to do so would be in this life. I list these three beliefs as things I hold with provisional certitude. That is enough for now. I write too much and things seem to get lost in the many words. I don't want that to happen.
Navidad Posted June 3, 2022 Posted June 3, 2022 59 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Like our temple, non-Catholics do not receive the Eucharist. He is prohibited from doing so. Catholics are not Mennonites, it is not an insult if he would pass you by for communion. Did I say I thought it was an insult that he would pass me by? Of course it would not be an insult. What might be an insult is if he served me communion and then suggested I was pretending when I took it from him. What I intended to say was whether or not he would serve me communion, or ask me to serve him communion is of no relevance as to whether or not I care about him or our relationship.
Recommended Posts