President Hinckley: "Bring Your Good" and Conversion

[Duncan]

6 minutes ago, Jerry Atric said:

I agree with you,  we all need to change as time goes on, it's healthy. But our church has made it abundantly clear that we're in the last days and we are going to be the ones who usher in the second coming. Let's say in 50 years the church looks totally 100% different than it did before the millennium, and we're not preaching about christ return, what does that mean for the churches credibility? Because our beliefs are changing extremely fast. 

I think President Benson answers your question

"God, the Father of us all, uses the men of the earth, especially good men, to accomplish his purposes. It has been true in the past, it is true today, it will be true in the future.

“Perhaps the Lord needs such men on the outside of His Church to help it along,” said the late Elder Orson F. Whitney of the Quorum of the Twelve. “They are among its auxiliaries, and can do more good for the cause where the Lord has placed them, than anywhere else. … Hence, some are drawn into the fold and receive a testimony of the truth; while others remain unconverted … the beauties and glories of the gospel being veiled temporarily from their view, for a wise purpose. The Lord will open their eyes in His own due time. God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of His great and marvelous work. The Latter-day Saints cannot do it all. It is too vast, too arduous for any one people. … We have no quarrel with the Gentiles. They are our partners in a certain sense.” (Conference Report, April 1928, p. 59.)"

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1972/04/civic-standards-for-the-faithful-saints?lang=eng

Besides of which the First Presidency said in 1978

https://emp.byui.edu/SATTERFIELDB/Talks/Feb 15 19798 First Presidency Gods Love for all mankind.html

"The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals."

[ksfisher]

12 minutes ago, Jerry Atric said:

Let's say in 50 years the church looks totally 100% different than it did before the millennium, and we're not preaching about christ return, what does that mean for the churches credibility?

I'm not sure what you're saying here?  You seem to be postulating a hypothetical situation, and then saying that your hypothetical situation makes the church not credible. 

[CV75]

13 minutes ago, Jerry Atric said:

"Christianity...is a perfect pack of nonsense...the devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century."

 

- Prophet John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, v. 6, p. 167

 

President Taylor seems to be saying all of Christianity is a perfect pack of nonsense, don't you think? Why would he say this?

And you learned all this while growing up, with no additional adult study since? Especially with all the "..." you insert? That takes some intent and effort to support a narrative of what you were taught growing up. The full quote from John Taylor, for example, said:

"There is no nation now that acknowledges the hand of God; there is not a king, potentate, nor ruler that acknowledges his jurisdiction. We talk about Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense. Men talk about civilization; but I do not want to say much about that, for I have seen enough of it. Myself and hundreds of the Elders around me have seen its pomp, parade, and glory; and what is it? It is a sounding brass and a tinkling symbol; it is as corrupt as hell; and the Devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century."

It is the talk that is corrupt, not "all of Christianity" (as you insist on justifying). It is the corrupt talk of 19th century Christianity, not "all of Christianity." Christianity is the misused engine, not the corruption itself. After all, the Church was a part of 19th century Christianity on January 17, 1858, when John Taylor gave this message.

Now that you are presumably all grown up an still learning, I think you would do better to use full quotes, context, and the full post of your interlocutors in your replies, instead of going through all the ineffectual trouble of cutting out snippets in either case. 

[Jerry Atric]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

And you learned all this while growing up, with no additional adult study since? Especially with all the "..." you insert? That takes some intent and effort to support a narrative of what you were taught growing up. The full quote from John Taylor, for example, said:

"There is no nation now that acknowledges the hand of God; there is not a king, potentate, nor ruler that acknowledges his jurisdiction. We talk about Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense. Men talk about civilization; but I do not want to say much about that, for I have seen enough of it. Myself and hundreds of the Elders around me have seen its pomp, parade, and glory; and what is it? It is a sounding brass and a tinkling symbol; it is as corrupt as hell; and the Devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century."

It is the talk that is corrupt, not "all of Christianity" (as you insist on justifying). It is the corrupt talk of 19th century Christianity, not "all of Christianity." Christianity is the misused engine, not the corruption itself. After all, the Church was a part of 19th century Christianity on January 17, 1858, when John Taylor gave this message.

Now that you are presumably all grown up an still learning, I think you would do better to use full quotes, context, and the full post of your interlocutors in your replies, instead of going through all the ineffectual trouble of cutting out snippets in either case. 

The full quote is even worse in my opinion. The early brethren thought Christians were influenced by the devil. They thought Christianity was so influenced by Paganism throughout the years, Christianity couldn't be saved. The brethren viewed Christians as ignorant when it came to spiritual matters. We still believe that, we just don't say it out loud anymore.

[Navidad]

I would hopefully like to add to the conversation. I think many (here and elsewhere) limit good, not so good, and perhaps even evil to membership in a particular group or denomination. In the assumption that my church is THEE CHURCH, folks lose much of the good in other churches that they might be able to appreciate by broadening their vision of what the broad church of Christ truly encompasses. For example I don't have to join the LDS church to appreciate and learn from the good that is in it as a Christian organization that is different from my own. My five years of faithful attendance in an LDS church has helped me expand, learn, and appreciate what the LDS church has to offer. I don't have to join it to gain from that.

In the same way, going back to my seminary days, I became much more acquainted with Roman Catholicism than I had ever been living in a cloistered (not really) Mennonite world. I began exploring the world of Catholicism and its rich heritage. I learned much from all of that - things I never before even thought about. I went to Catholic retreats, marriage retreats, read books, listened to sermons, attended masses (still do on occasion) and learned a whole different side of Christianity than I knew before. I didn't  have to become Catholic to do that. Ditto for the times I attended an Antiochan Orthodox church, a Baptist church, a non-denominational church, the Christian and Missionary Alliance, and the Evangelical Free church. There is so much to learn from Christians who have different perspectives on faith that can be added to my own.

Methinks if we would focus more on what we can learn from each other, we would focus less on trying to convert each other, except of course unless we already think we are the only and everyone else is the other. Then our learning about exciting and new ways to think about and express our shared Christian faith will never happen. I remember with sadness the Sunday morning that our EQ teacher asked the class how many had attended a church of another faith. Out of around 25 attendees, I think it was three of us who raised our hands. Think of the meaningful and powerful new things about Christianity that the other 22 had missed! I don't doubt that many different groups are true and have some of the truth. I am provisionally certain that no one group has THEE TRUTH and ALL OF THE TRUTH. Let's worry less about converting and joining and more about learning and growing in the faith!

[Stargazer]

On 9/11/2022 at 4:45 AM, MiserereNobis said:

In another thread, I responded to a quote from President Hinckley where he said:

I have responded to this quote before, but thought a thread devoted to it might be good.

Here's what I said:

I have an issue with President Hinckley's statement. It appears very open and inclusive. However, I doubt it as a practical matter. It seems rather rhetorical. This is something I've commented on before. He says to bring the good that I have and let the LDS church add to it. One of the "goods" I have is my devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. She has been with me from the beginning of my conversion to Christianity to the present moment. In a short post I cannot explain how much Our Lady has done for me. She is so good to me. I would not be Christian without Her intercession.

Yet, if I were to convert to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I would have to leave that behind. No more rosaries. No more candles lit to Her Honor. No more prayers to Her. No more devotion to Her.

How is my conversion to your faith taking the good I have and letting you add to it? It appears to me that a conversion to your faith means letting go of the things I thought were good but were actually contrary to your beliefs, and then adding your beliefs to what was left. In other words, the only "good" I bring is that which is already LDS.

I'm ok with that as a definition of conversion. That's what it definitely means to convert to Catholicism -- you gotta leave your non Catholic beliefs at the door. But President Hinckley's words seem to try to hide that fact in order to appear softer or more inclusive or more ecumenical. How can I bring non-LDS "goods" to my conversion to being LDS?

This happened once before, and you're well aware of it. I don't think anyone here has yet hit upon it, so...

When Jesus was living in mortality he made a particular point, among other things, to teach the Jews the parts of the Law of Moses that had been corrupted by the Pharisees (and others), and to replace those parts with the correct doctrine and practices. For this He was vilified, and ultimately crucified. After His resurrection, he sent the Apostles and others out to preach the Good News of the Kingdom to them, including finally, the gentiles. When the Jews came to Christ, were they required to give up everything in order to take on the name of Christ? Of course not! They gave up (probably with some reluctance) the various sacrifices of the Law of Moses, the rote details of the Law that had been required by the Pharisees and Sadducees, but they kept other parts, including the 10 Commandments. Many of the Christianized Jews continued to celebrate Passover and the other feasts, and they practiced male circumcision. The apostles eventually decided this was okay, but for Christianized Gentiles it was not to be required. When the worshippers of the Roman pantheon came on board, naturally they had to give up praying the Jupiter, et al., but the righteous practices of that religion were welcome.

So what President Hinckley said was not the first time it was said. 

A Catholic joining the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will give up confession, the rosary, and the former priests and nuns will be encouraged to marry. In return they get the Temple ordinances, the Word of Wisdom, and so on. A Muslim joining the CoJCoLDS will give up the Haj, be able to eat pork (if he or she wants), and so on, but can keep many of the righteous practices of Islam. 

The message is that there are admirable aspects in virtually all religions. To come to the CoJCoLDS, the admirable practices and beliefs can stay, the rest are abandoned, and the new or corrected ones will be added.

What is important is not what we like or what comforts us, but what is true doctrine and practice. Some things we like or give us comfort may be perfectly acceptable to keep, and some others won't be, but again, true doctrine and practice are what is most important. What God wants should replace what we want, when they conflict.

I mean, look at it from the other direction. If I were to decide that the Catholic Church is the way to go, I'd have to give up Temple ordinances, helping bless the sacrament on Sundays, and a few other things, but in return I wouldn't have to go out ministering any longer, and I could finally get cozy with a bottle of Jim Beam. But I could keep my conviction that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (if in a slightly different format, i.e. the Trinity), as well as the Ten Commandments and some other things.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Jerry Atric said:

The full quote is even worse in my opinion. The early brethren thought Christians were influenced by the devil. They thought Christianity was so influenced by Paganism throughout the years, Christianity couldn't be saved. The brethren viewed Christians as ignorant when it came to spiritual matters. We still believe that, we just don't say it out loud anymore.

Ok that's your opinion about what someone else was thinking. And you may believe your opinion to to be a fact that you do not say out loud. But do your lips move when you use the keyboard? Maybe you can share your views with Atlantic Mike!

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

So what President Hinckley said was not the first time it was said.

I understand and agree with you and this interpretation. My point was that at first glance, it looks like President Hinckley was downplaying what it means to convert. Bring your good and add to it sounds different than give up what's not true and take what we offer instead, when in fact the later is what is being asked for in a conversion.

It was good to hear from other viewpoints and ways of looking at this, too.

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

If I were to decide that the Catholic Church is the way to go, I'd have to give up Temple ordinances, helping bless the sacrament on Sundays, and a few other things, but in return I wouldn't have to go out ministering any longer, and I could finally get cozy with a bottle of Jim Beam.

Good god, man, get thee to confession! If you're going to drink bourbon aim higher! At least Basil Hayden's!  

[MiserereNobis]

6 minutes ago, Jim Dandy said:

I think it's possible to be both a "Mormon" and a "Catholic".  Or a member of 2 or more churches.  As far as I know there is no requirement to resign membership in any one church before joining another church. Why "abandon" one for another?

I think you're focusing on your name being on a list somewhere as opposed to believing in one church. One cannot believe in the Catholic Church and the CoJCoLDS at the same time. The claims are mutually exclusive. 

[MiserereNobis]

6 minutes ago, Jim Dandy said:

From a certain, perspective, I can see how you might think both claims are mutually exclusive.  Both churches claim to be the one and only true church of Jesus Christ.  But what if they both are that one and only true church?... like how the church portrayed in the New Testament is the same one and only true church as today's modern church.  I know Catholics don't usually accept the apostles in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as true apostles of Jesus Christ, and "LDS" don't usually accept the Catholic Pope as the highest bishop on Earth like Catholics do, but maybe these are minor quibbles and somehow in God's eyes we are all part of the same church?  I think it's possible.  I try to not discount anything that can be seen as good from a certain perspective.  Maybe you and I are brothers in Christ even though we are members of different churches, in one perspective, but the same church from another perspective.

That would be bending the doctrines of the Catholic Church so they are no longer Catholic. If what you propose is true, then a foundational basic dogma of the Catholic Church is false. You are free to believe that, obviously, but it can't be presented as compatible with Catholic belief.

I imagine most LDS would agree with this as well.

I'm pretty sure Navidad would agree with you, though

As to your last sentence, I certainly believe we are brothers in Christ.

[Rain]

6 hours ago, Duncan said:

 

 

Elder Richard G. Scott, from 14 Jan 2006 Church News

"I hate to admit this, but when I've given up some of the very deeply held convictions of my personal experience and followed this more precisely, it's worked out a lot better. Things change; the world has changed, and the fact that we have a new emphasis and direction now in no way criticizes what has been done before. This is for our time and our need now."

@Scott Lloyd I looked this up and see it came from an article you wrote.  There is more around the quote:

Quote

"What happens if you've had really neat missionary experiences that are different than are taught in Preach My Gospel ?" he asked. The response he elicited is that they are to be "put on the shelf."

"Use the foundational principles in Preach My Gospel and teach by the Spirit," he counseled. "There is flexibility, but not in terms of what we're trying to accomplish or how we're trying to accomplish it."

The new leaders and their wives can find the guide to be helpful in such matters as learning a new language and in helping missionary companions who are not getting along, the apostle suggested, adding that the chapter on developing Christlike attributes can be helpful in the latter event.

"There needs to be some accommodation, but not in the core aspects of what we're trying to do and how well you work together (with others who may have overlapping responsibilities)," Elder Scott explained.

He noted, "I hate to admit this, but when I've given up some of the very deeply held convictions of my personal experience and followed this more precisely, it's worked out a lot better. Things change; the world has changed, and the fact that we have a new emphasis and direction now in no way criticizes what has been done before. This is for our time and our need now."

Elder Scott spoke of a "dual reporting responsibility" that rests upon both Missionary Training Center presidents and visitors center directors. On ecclesiastical matters, the Missionary Training Center president would seek direction from and report to the area presidency, but on matters of administration and operation would go to the Missionary Department for direction. And the visitors center director would go to the mission president (under whom he serves as a missionary) for direction on ecclesiastical matters, while on operational matters, he would consult the Missionary Department.

It's been a long time, but do you remember anything else he might have said (paraphrases are fine) along those lines? Specific things he might have been talking about when he said them?  It sounds pretty straight forward, but it also sounds like you heard quite a few things and just pulled out the most important things so I wondered what else might have been said.     

[Stargazer]

57 minutes ago, Jim Dandy said:

I think it's possible to be both a "Mormon" and a "Catholic".  Or a member of 2 or more churches.  As far as I know there is no requirement to resign membership in any one church before joining another church. Why "abandon" one for another?

As a matter of fact I never did resign my membership in the church I was in before I joined this one.  I haven't attended for many years so they probably consider me to be inactive or less active in that church but technically I am still a member of it. 

And I can still see things from both perspectives.

It is LDS Church policy that merely joining another Church is not grounds for a membership council. 

[Stargazer]

55 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I understand and agree with you and this interpretation. My point was that at first glance, it looks like President Hinckley was downplaying what it means to convert. Bring your good and add to it sounds different than give up what's not true and take what we offer instead, when in fact the later is what is being asked for in a conversion.

It was good to hear from other viewpoints and ways of looking at this, too.

Good god, man, get thee to confession! If you're going to drink bourbon aim higher! At least Basil Hayden's!  

Jim Beam was my stepbrother's favorite and when bourbon comes up that's the first one I think of.

[Navidad]

54 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I think you're focusing on your name being on a list somewhere as opposed to believing in one church. One cannot believe in the Catholic Church and the CoJCoLDS at the same time. The claims are mutually exclusive. 

Sure, but one can certainly learn from both without a belief in either church's onlyism (other than the universal church of Christ). One can certainly believe in teachings from both and many other churches, especially if you reject both claims of exclusivity. Why must one believe in "one church?" I certainly don't. Why must one even be a member of a specific church, especially if one rejects the necessity of such for salvation?

[MiserereNobis]

42 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Sure, but one can certainly learn from both without a belief in either church's onlyism

No disagreement there. 

43 minutes ago, Navidad said:

One can certainly believe in teachings from both and many other churches

Sure, as long as they are not contrary. 

43 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Why must one believe in "one church?"

Because God commands it. 

44 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I certainly don't.

I know. You’re a protestant.

45 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Why must one even be a member of a specific church

Because God commands it. 

46 minutes ago, Navidad said:

especially if one rejects the necessity of such for salvation?

We all know you reject it. You bring it up so very often. It’s the bulk of your posting. 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Jim Dandy said:

Well, all Christians should at least hope to be in the TRUE church of Jesus Christ, and if we are not in that one then we need to get in it.  His church is his people who follow him, and if we don't follow him then we are not his people.

No disagreement with the basic thrust of your reply. I simply believe the TRUE church of Jesus Christ is made up of the ekklesia, the called out ones - one at a time from whatever denomination or church (small c).

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

No disagreement there. 

Sure, as long as they are not contrary. 

Because God commands it. 

I know. You’re a protestant.

Because God commands it. 

We all know you reject it. You bring it up so very often. It’s the bulk of your posting. 

I am not a Protestant. I am an Anabaptist - Mennonite to be specific. We do not consider ourselves Protestants. None of what I have enjoyed learning from differing churches is contrary to the teachings of the other. If the bulk of my posting is holding a belief that Christ died for individuals and not organizations, that Christ will judge me as an individual at the judgement seat, and not by my specific earthly church affiliation, that I am justified by my belief in and adherence to the atonement of Christ, and that I learn, grow, and deepen my faith by learning from my local Catholic priest, my LDS bishop, and my Baptist pastor-friend, among others, then I stipulate to your comment. No regrets for that. Take care.

Edited September 14, 2022 by Navidad

[MiserereNobis]

21 minutes ago, Navidad said:

None of what I have enjoyed learning from differing churches is contrary to the teachings of the other.

But that which you do not enjoy, in other words that with which you disagree, is contrary. 

23 minutes ago, Navidad said:

If the bulk of my posting is holding a belief that Christ died for individuals and not organizations, that Christ will judge me as an individual at the judgement seat, and not by my specific earthly church affiliation, that I am justified by my belief in and adherence to the atonement of Christ, and that I learn, grow, and deepen my faith by learning from my local Catholic priest, my LDS bishop, and my Baptist pastor-friend, among others, then I stipulate to your comment.

No, the bulk of your comments are about onlyism and pointing out to the LDS how they are wrong in their exclusivity.

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

But that which you do not enjoy, in other words that with which you disagree, is contrary. 

No, the bulk of your comments are about onlyism and pointing out to the LDS how they are wrong in their exclusivity.

[3DOP]

The main thing I like about LDS thinking, is that about which is complained by Protestants. This triumvirate: Catholic, Protestant, LDS, was formative for me. Without the LDS claims against Protestant Christianity, I may never have become Catholic.

Edited September 14, 2022 by 3DOP

[Calm]

14 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

That would be bending the doctrines of the Catholic Church so they are no longer Catholic. If what you propose is true, then a foundational basic dogma of the Catholic Church is false. You are free to believe that, obviously, but it can't be presented as compatible with Catholic belief.

I imagine most LDS would agree with this as well.

I'm pretty sure Navidad would agree with you, though

As to your last sentence, I certainly believe we are brothers in Christ.

Quote

Formally joining another church and promoting its teachings (Total inactivity in the Church or attending another church does not by itself constitute apostasy. However, if a member formally joins another church and advocates its teachings, withdrawing his or her membership may be necessary.)

14 hours ago, Jim Dandy said:

For clarity's sake, please tell me which "foundational basic dogma of the Catholic Church" would be false if what I have in mind is true.  I'm searching my mind for any technical conflict I am aware of.

Off the top of my head, I would say our relationship with God the Father is in conflict to the point the point our Restored Gospel’s belief is blasphemy to Catholics and others…the belief that God the Father is an exalted human and that gap of humanity vs godliness that exists between Man and God can be completely bridged (in essence Latter-day Saints believe that in the end for those exalted being fully human will mean the same identical state of being as being fully God while Catholics and others believe while there may be some overlap where God has blessed mankind with godly attributes, there are other aspects of God mankind will never possess).

13 hours ago, Stargazer said:

It is LDS Church policy that merely joining another Church is not grounds for a membership council. 

Incorrect or maybe incorrect depending on how you interpret that.   My interpretation is attending a church is not, formally joining one is.  See 36.6.3.2 quoted above…formatting wouldn’t let my cursor in between the first quotes…

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils?lang=eng#title_number30

 

Edited September 14, 2022 by Calm

[Navidad]

8 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

But that which you do not enjoy, in other words that with which you disagree, is contrary. 

No, the bulk of your comments are about onlyism and pointing out to the LDS how they are wrong in their exclusivity.

Hi! I don't want you t o think I am ignoring your reply, but I have to drive up to the states today to take my son to the doctor and I won't have time to comment. I would simply suggest that it is not a binary choice - that which I enjoy and those things that are contrary to each. Most of the latter I don't care too much about so I don't comment on them. There is a universe of distance between the two. For example eschatology is not a big thing for me. Neither is the form (mode) of ordinances. I don't comment on or enjoy those discussions because they simply are not important in my view of salvation.

Second, I write and speak constantly about onlyism/otherism as one of the six primary precursors to human conflict. So yes, it is a big thing in my understanding of conflict in the the world. I stipulate to that. Four hour drives each way today through rough country. Hopefully I can respond better tomorrow! Take care.

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Incorrect or maybe in correct depending on how you interpret that.   My interpretation is attending a church is not, formally joining one is.  See 36.6.3.2 quoted above…formatting wouldn’t let my cursor in between the first quotes…

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils?lang=eng#title_number30

 

I was making the point that merely joining another church does not fulfill the "elements of the offense" (to use lawyering terms).

"Formally joining another church and promoting its teachings (Total inactivity in the Church or attending another church does not by itself constitute apostasy. However, if a member formally joins another church and advocates its teachings, withdrawing his or her membership may be necessary.)"

It seems to me that I could quietly join the Catholic Church, attend Mass, make Confession, and so on, and this would not trigger a possible withdrawal of membership until I started showing up at our Sunday School advocating for the RCC. Or perhaps if I started a ministry promoting Catholicism, such as showing up here and doing so. Of course, an ethical person would resign his or her membership well before this.

[Calm]

Iirc, in the past just formally joining another church qualified as apostasy. And I wouldn’t be surprised if a bishop who found out someone had joined another faith and was a bishop that lived by the old rules unless they were in significant conflict would just shrug if someone tried to argue they weren’t advocating any teachings of the other church that were different from ours. I think if the answer to the question “why did you join the other faith then?” were answered “because I believe it is true”, they would be seen as not sustaining, etc, especially if they were choosing to attend the other church instead of ours.

Would be very interested to know if anyone knows of any examples of such in the past few years. Long shot probably. 

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Jim Dandy said:

And if those other people would believe what we believe rather than NOT believe it then most of our beliefs would be in common.

1 hour ago, Jim Dandy said:

Their unbelief causes the conflict, whereas if they believed as we do then there would be no conflict or effort to convince us that our positive beliefs are not true.

Hmmm...