New Book about the Apostasy. Any thoughts or comments?

[Stargazer]

On 11/13/2022 at 1:19 AM, Navidad said:

How about those in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who persecute the non-LDS world-wide Christian church (community) only because they sincerely believe that it is apostate. Should we cut them some slack too? I do.

Everyone should be cut some slack. As Paul said:

For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away... For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Is there a lot of that LDS to non-LDS Christian persecution going on, do you think?

Edited November 14, 2022 by Stargazer

[Navidad]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

s there a lot of that LDS to non-LDS Christian persecution going on, do you think?

No, I don't really think it is fair to deem it "persecution" when done in the modern era, either by or to any particular religious group. My five years in the world of the LDS church has changed me. I do have some scars from the subtle, yet challenging lessening I have experienced at their hands. I think of it as the "go away closer" paradox that the identified problem child finds in dysfunctional family. That child is never quite sure whether he or she is going to be loved or abused, embraced or pushed away. With one hand she learns to push away to protect; with the other to seek an embrace to be loved. Family system theorists see it as a leading non-organic cause of schizoid behavior or dissociative reactions.

Back in the 19th century folks declared blacks to be 2/3 of a person in order to make them "less than" to justify abuse however subtle or overt. I think religious zealots do both of these to each other. They hug, but aren't too sure you should be taking the sacrament. They call you brother, but aren't sure you should be praying in their services. They call you heretic and Christian at the same time. Even though you love the Savior and are committed to His atonement, they declare that you couldn't possibly be a Christian because you aren't trinitarian, or fall short in some other doctrinal necessity like a specific view of the Godhead, or eschatology, or mode of baptism. Being 2/3 of a Christian in any people's doctrine is not a pleasant place to be.

Of course, different from most family dysfunction in a church situation, one can simply just flee. Then the faithful declares the one fleeing to be apostate and it just gets worse. When doctrine turns to dogma to duty, the faithful believe they are justified in mounting the bulwarks and either defending or attacking the one who isn't them, the other. Typically neither the Mennonite or the LDS Christian even makes an attempt to really-no-kidding get to know the other because that is dangerous to the maintenance of orthodoxy.  Why should we get to know another faith when we already have the security of certainty that we have and are thee truth? After all, God said it, I believe it, and that settles it. Then you get to know someone of another faith to whom God said it, they believe it, and that settles it for them. Defenses go up and silly things are said like "You shouldn't take the sacrament, but realize if you do, you are just pretending!" Or, "that was a really nice prayer, but I wish they wouldn't let non-members pray." And once again I am 2/3 of a Christian.

So, no I wouldn't describe all of that as persecution, but I think it grieves the soul of Christ, the one who never named a specific Church when He said "Come unto me all ye that labor." The Christian faith is first and foremost about a Savior, not a church. It is about repentance and turning around. . . not about being baptized and having your name recorded on a specific church role. Most of all it is about admitting that the very best of us, those with the very best intentions and the most certainty peer through a dark mirror as we attempt to understand our salvation. That is something to be approached with humility and as you know, I would say uncertainty.

It is much easier to be kind to someone who has different exactitude in their beliefs than I do when I am not quite so certain I am right. I know of nowhere that Scripture says that our certainty makes us whole. Faith is more of a verb than a noun. If I choose to be certain about anything it is that Christ will decide things about each of us with a perfect balance of righteousness and mercy. That is good enough for me. Thanks for reading though another long reply. Best wishes!

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Back in the 19th century folks declared blacks to be 2/3 of a person in order to make them "less than" to justify abuse however subtle or overt.

Nope. You are thinking of the provision in the US Constitution under which slaves were to be counted at 3/5 in the census for the purpose of reckoning representation in the House of Representatives. It was a compromise between the North, who did not want to count them at all, and the South, who wanted to fully count them.

The compromise was to prevent the South from artificially gaining undue representation based on people who were enslaved, were not citizens, and could not vote. In short, the North considered it an unjust accrual of power to fully count them. The compromise of 3/5 was required in order to get the Southerners to approve the Constitution. 

It had nothing to do with regarding blacks as less than human. Even if some Southerners did consider them less, THEY were the ones who wanted to count them fully. For nefarious purposes. 

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Nope. You are thinking of the provision in the US Constitution under which slaves were to be counted at 3/5 in the census for the purpose of reckoning representation in the House of Representatives. It was a compromise between the North, who did not want to count them at all, and the South, who wanted to fully count them.

The compromise was to prevent the South from artificially gaining undue representation based on people who were enslaved, were not citizens, and could not vote. In short, the North considered it an unjust accrual of power to fully count them. The compromise of 3/5 was required in order to get the Southerners to approve the Constitution. 

It had nothing to do with regarding blacks as less than human. Even if some Southerners did consider them less, THEY were the ones who wanted to count them fully. For nefarious purposes. 

Ok. I messed that up. I should have researched it better. My bad. Sorry. It was a metaphor, not the core point. Is that your response to my entire post? To correct the metaphor?

[MiserereNobis]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

No, I don't really think it is fair to deem it "persecution" when done in the modern era, either by or to any particular religious group. My five years in the world of the LDS church has changed me. I do have some scars from the subtle, yet challenging lessening I have experienced at their hands. I think of it as the "go away closer" paradox that the identified problem child finds in dysfunctional family. That child is never quite sure whether he or she is going to be loved or abused, embraced or pushed away. With one hand she learns to push away to protect; with the other to seek an embrace to be loved. Family system theorists see it as a leading non-organic cause of schizoid behavior or dissociative reactions.

Back in the 19th century folks declared blacks to be 2/3 of a person in order to make them "less than" to justify abuse however subtle or overt. I think religious zealots do both of these to each other. They hug, but aren't too sure you should be taking the sacrament. They call you brother, but aren't sure you should be praying in their services. They call you heretic and Christian at the same time. Even though you love the Savior and are committed to His atonement, they declare that you couldn't possibly be a Christian because you aren't trinitarian, or fall short in some other doctrinal necessity like a specific view of the Godhead, or eschatology, or mode of baptism. Being 2/3 of a Christian in any people's doctrine is not a pleasant place to be.

Of course, different from most family dysfunction in a church situation, one can simply just flee. Then the faithful declares the one fleeing to be apostate and it just gets worse. When doctrine turns to dogma to duty, the faithful believe they are justified in mounting the bulwarks and either defending or attacking the one who isn't them, the other. Typically neither the Mennonite or the LDS Christian even makes an attempt to really-no-kidding get to know the other because that is dangerous to the maintenance of orthodoxy.  Why should we get to know another faith when we already have the security of certainty that we have and are thee truth? After all, God said it, I believe it, and that settles it. Then you get to know someone of another faith to whom God said it, they believe it, and that settles it for them. Defenses go up and silly things are said like "You shouldn't take the sacrament, but realize if you do, you are just pretending!" Or, "that was a really nice prayer, but I wish they wouldn't let non-members pray." And once again I am 2/3 of a Christian.

So, no I wouldn't describe all of that as persecution, but I think it grieves the soul of Christ, the one who never named a specific Church when He said "Come unto me all ye that labor." The Christian faith is first and foremost about a Savior, not a church. It is about repentance and turning around. . . not about being baptized and having your name recorded on a specific church role. Most of all it is about admitting that the very best of us, those with the very best intentions and the most certainty peer through a dark mirror as we attempt to understand our salvation. That is something to be approached with humility and as you know, I would say uncertainty.

It is much easier to be kind to someone who has different exactitude in their beliefs than I do when I am not quite so certain I am right. I know of nowhere that Scripture says that our certainty makes us whole. Faith is more of a verb than a noun. If I choose to be certain about anything it is that Christ will decide things about each of us with a perfect balance of righteousness and mercy. That is good enough for me. Thanks for reading though another long reply. Best wishes!

Do you realize how harsh and judgmental you are being towards LDS? You are judging them and declaring them a dysfunctional and even abusive family. You have held up your own standards as the standard to judge. Your standard is not dogma, it’s not exclusivity, but it is inclusivity. If a church is not inclusive enough, then it’s dysfunctional. That’s your view, and by imposing it on other Christians, you’ve created the exact situation you say you are critiquing. 

[Stargazer]

10 hours ago, Navidad said:

Ok. I messed that up. I should have researched it better. My bad. Sorry. It was a metaphor, not the core point. Is that your response to my entire post? To correct the metaphor?

My apologies! I was in bed trying to get to sleep. As my last conscious act I checked MDDB to see what was going on. My nearly somnolent brain could zero in on only that part of your post -- because it was the simplest part to answer. So, just before falling unconscious I tapped that bit out while gradually fading out..

I'm serious! It was my last act before snores began.

[Navidad]

12 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Do you realize how harsh and judgmental you are being towards LDS? You are judging them and declaring them a dysfunctional and even abusive family. You have held up your own standards as the standard to judge. Your standard is not dogma, it’s not exclusivity, but it is inclusivity. If a church is not inclusive enough, then it’s dysfunctional. That’s your view, and by imposing it on other Christians, you’ve created the exact situation you say you are critiquing. 

Interesting comment - I will take it to heart. I find it curious to be coming from someone who is pretty harsh and judgmental towards the more liberal arm of his own faith. Your comments on this forum about post-Vatican II Catholicism are not exactly generous. I hear in your comments, more defense of the LDS than you defend post Vatican II Catholicism (which is most likely far more personal for you). I am not even sure you would acknowledge that expression of your own faith as your Catholicism, since your own personal experiences, beliefs, and dogma seem to differ from that of post-Vatican II Catholicism. Perspective is different when it is personal.

I hear what you are saying about my comments. My comments come from my own personal experiences as a step or foster child in an inconsistent LDS family. Doctrinally and dogma-wise I affirm their full Christianity. Do you? Is your and your church's position towards their baptism less harsh and judgmental than my position toward their inconsistency and subtle forms of go away closer dysfunction? I would suggest that your cleverly hidden judgments about their baptisms, etc. are more eternally judgmental than mine reflecting on my own personal discomfort and thoughts that I have gained from intensive interaction with them as a full, valid, and complementary branch of Christianity. As a representative of a very conservative and minority branch of Catholicism you are far more judgmental (in cloaked reality) towards the LDS than I am. You just keep it in the closet, disguised in friendly dialogue. 

It is not their lack of inclusivity I am bemoaning  - it is their inclusivity (brother - Christian) and exclusivity (heretic - apostate) flip-flops that I am bemoaning. I suggest it is different when it hurts. The LDS presence in our lives is ubiquitous - a small, tight-knit community that we interact with daily at the store, bank, hardware store, doctor, etc. That would be great if we weren't given pause about whether Brother or Sister so and so will simply ignore us, embrace us, some other disparate response.

It is enough at times to create confusion and tears, probably something you may have experienced over the divisions within your own church? When we walk in the chapel doors on a Sunday morning at 8:45am, we are never sure what to expect or how we will feel when we leave at 11:15am. We gird our loins, so to speak for what may come. That has nothing to do with inclusivity or exclusivity. With all your interest in the LDS faith and presence on this forum - how many Sunday morning sacraments have you attended? How many LDS chapel carpets have you cleaned? LDS funerals of those with whom you have been close? For that matter, how many mainstream post-Vatican II masses and doctrinal changes do you attend and/or affirm?  My guess (without any concrete knowledge) is that you cocoon yourself within a fairly conservative, similarly-minded community  of the Catholic faith. It is a place where you are safe. We aren't safe, even at the grocery store.

Methinks there is a bit of judging in all of us. "Go away-closer" is the source of our wounds; not inclusivity or exclusivity. Having said that I respect you enough that I will consider your feedback.

Edited November 15, 2022 by Navidad

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

My apologies! I was in bed trying to get to sleep. As my last conscious act I checked MDDB to see what was going on. My nearly somnolent brain could zero in on only that part of your post -- because it was the simplest part to answer. So, just before falling unconscious I tapped that bit out while gradually fading out..

I'm serious! It was my last act before snores began.

Since my concussion and nerve damage of a few months ago I am well acquainted with differing states of consciousness. I have greatly appreciated your kindness and consistency with  my opining and ramblings. Thanks.

[Stargazer]

18 hours ago, Navidad said:

No, I don't really think it is fair to deem it "persecution" when done in the modern era, either by or to any particular religious group. My five years in the world of the LDS church has changed me. I do have some scars from the subtle, yet challenging lessening I have experienced at their hands. I think of it as the "go away closer" paradox that the identified problem child finds in dysfunctional family. That child is never quite sure whether he or she is going to be loved or abused, embraced or pushed away. With one hand she learns to push away to protect; with the other to seek an embrace to be loved. Family system theorists see it as a leading non-organic cause of schizoid behavior or dissociative reactions.

I know what you're talking about. But were there never such things happening in the Mennonite congregations you were part of?

Edited to add: as Christians we must always seek to love all our Father's children, even if we, in our undeniable wisdom know that they aren't fully in possession of all the truth. And love requires charity, which is to say the pure love of Christ. True, Christ rebuked those whose behavior was incorrect (e.g. the driving of the moneychangers from the Temple), but love afterwards was always his watchword.

One mighty truth to be acknowledged by all who believe themselves to be in possession of the truth, is that treating others poorly whom we judge not to be in possession of that truth is one sure-fire way of driving them not closer, but further from the truth we espouse! Which is counter everything God has tried to teach us. 

18 hours ago, Navidad said:

Back in the 19th century folks declared blacks to be 2/3 of a person in order to make them "less than" to justify abuse however subtle or overt. I think religious zealots do both of these to each other. They hug, but aren't too sure you should be taking the sacrament. They call you brother, but aren't sure you should be praying in their services. They call you heretic and Christian at the same time. Even though you love the Savior and are committed to His atonement, they declare that you couldn't possibly be a Christian because you aren't trinitarian, or fall short in some other doctrinal necessity like a specific view of the Godhead, or eschatology, or mode of baptism. Being 2/3 of a Christian in any people's doctrine is not a pleasant place to be.

I think what you describe is a common human failing. I've seen it in various places, not only in religious communities, but in many others. I recall my last interaction with a brother who had been a good priesthood class instructor, and we had a conversation at the workplace in which the subject of the supreme court decision regarding the "personhood" of corporations came up. He disparaged the decision in favor of personhood, and when I disagreed with him, he got this disgusted and betrayed look on his face, broke off the discussion and walked away. He avoided me steadfastly after that, and his church attendance, formerly spotty anyway, fell off entirely. Was I the cause? I don't know, but he clearly regarded me as 2/3 a Latter-day Saint, not because of my faith, but because of my politics.

The same thing occurs when a "person of color" is found to be supporting the "wrong" political party. Suddenly he or she is no longer black, or whatever color they were previously. 

18 hours ago, Navidad said:

Of course, different from most family dysfunction in a church situation, one can simply just flee. Then the faithful declares the one fleeing to be apostate and it just gets worse. When doctrine turns to dogma to duty, the faithful believe they are justified in mounting the bulwarks and either defending or attacking the one who isn't them, the other. Typically neither the Mennonite or the LDS Christian even makes an attempt to really-no-kidding get to know the other because that is dangerous to the maintenance of orthodoxy.  Why should we get to know another faith when we already have the security of certainty that we have and are thee truth? After all, God said it, I believe it, and that settles it. Then you get to know someone of another faith to whom God said it, they believe it, and that settles it for them. Defenses go up and silly things are said like "You shouldn't take the sacrament, but realize if you do, you are just pretending!" Or, "that was a really nice prayer, but I wish they wouldn't let non-members pray." And once again I am 2/3 of a Christian.

Odd notion, that in bold. And definitely silly. After all, we allow our under-8 year old children to partake of the sacrament even though as unbaptized persons, they don't yet have a baptismal covenant with the Lord to renew, and as not yet accountable, Christ's Atonement covers their transgressions, so they also have no repentance to offer. Thus they, too, are pretending, but we don't prevent them, or tell them they're pretending.

Back when I was a branch president in 1983, the instruction we had received regarding non-members partaking of the sacrament was that we were not to forbid them, and if anything were to be said prior to its administration about it, we might announce it as follows: "And now we will administer the sacrament to the members of the Church." And then, if any non-members present felt inclined to partake anyway, that was their choice. I haven't heard that form of announcement again in many many years.

When I was a missionary in Germany back in the 1970s, we were teaching one family whose husband had acquired a strong testimony of the Church, but his wife hadn't yet arrived to that point. He preferred not to be baptized until his wife could join him, but wanted to partake of the sacrament anyway. We explained to him that since he was not yet a member of the church, partaking wouldn't mean the same as it would to a member, but if he wanted to, no-one would forbid him. Accordingly, he began taking the sacrament when they attended sacrament meeting. 

The thing is, one should understand what one is doing.

If I were to attend a Catholic mass, would I feel OK with receiving the Eucharist? Having never considered this before, my inclination is to not being OK with it. For one thing, Catholic rules regarding this say I shouldn't. The person must be baptized Catholic to receive it. Would the priest tell me that as a non-Catholic I am just pretending if I receive it? He might. Would he be justified in saying so? Perhaps so. But if one were to partake anyway, out of a feeling of one-ness with the Savior, or solidarity with the Church?

The Apostle Paul had this to say about it:

But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. (1 Cor. 11:28-30)

What constitutes "unworthily"? For the Catholic, besides being a baptized Catholic, the person "must be in a state of grace and has been through the Sacrament of Reconciliation (i.e. not be aware of any unconfessed mortal sins)." And while not in so many words, the LDS outlook upon this partaking unworthily is essentially the same as the Catholic's.

18 hours ago, Navidad said:

So, no I wouldn't describe all of that as persecution, but I think it grieves the soul of Christ, the one who never named a specific Church when He said "Come unto me all ye that labor." The Christian faith is first and foremost about a Savior, not a church. It is about repentance and turning around. . . not about being baptized and having your name recorded on a specific church role. Most of all it is about admitting that the very best of us, those with the very best intentions and the most certainty peer through a dark mirror as we attempt to understand our salvation. That is something to be approached with humility and as you know, I would say uncertainty.

And yet it seems that there might be "a specific church" with specific authority. When Paul encountered some disciples who had not received the Holy Ghost since they believed, and hadn't even heard of the Holy Ghost though they had been baptized "unto John’s baptism," he seemed to take the tack that they hadn't been baptized by proper authority, and so re-baptized them. Whereupon they were blessed by Paul and received the Holy Ghost. 

One cannot say that Christ "never named a specific Church" because there was only one Church when he was in mortality. And there was only one Church immediately after his Resurrection, too. Yet we know from John's revelation that none of the seven churches in Asia (called Asia Minor in our day) escaped some form of rebuke for apostasy or falling away. Were they not becoming other churches when John wrote to them? And falling away were they still "the Church" when they were permitting such things as a "prophetess" who was using harlotry as a sacrament of some sort? 

I realize that there is a strong component of egalitarianism in the ecumenical movement that urges acceptance as a Christian every religious adherent that at least acknowledges Christ as the Savior. But that is undeniably a man-made movement. When Christ said in Matthew 11:

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Did he mean to say that everyone could join whatever faction of Christianity that would ever exist and they were all equally authoritative and approved by Him? I don't see it. He said at that time, in effect, "Join my church," and since there was only the one, of which He and His apostles were the overseers of, there was no doubt which one He meant. 

Paul made it clear that that situation would change:

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. (Acts 20:28-30)

Were the organizations founded by men speaking perverse things still "the Church", with all the authority thereof? And how do we know that the those perverted things being spoken did not become accepted as the truth in the new churches that arose? The divisions between all of them seem to indicate, to me at least, that they weren't. 

18 hours ago, Navidad said:

It is much easier to be kind to someone who has different exactitude in their beliefs than I do when I am not quite so certain I am right. I know of nowhere that Scripture says that our certainty makes us whole. Faith is more of a verb than a noun. If I choose to be certain about anything it is that Christ will decide things about each of us with a perfect balance of righteousness and mercy. That is good enough for me. Thanks for reading though another long reply. Best wishes!

It is absolutely true that Christ will decide such things. 

But do we not have an obligation to do our best to find out what Christ wants for us in this life? Would He not seek to lead us to the full truth or as much as we can find while we are here? And if we don't seek His guidance in that quest are we not disobeying His admonition, "Follow me"?

You see, I have finally addressed what you wrote more completely! My apologies for the long post!

Best wishes to you, too!

Edited November 15, 2022 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

13 hours ago, Navidad said:

Ok. I messed that up. I should have researched it better. My bad. Sorry. It was a metaphor, not the core point. Is that your response to my entire post? To correct the metaphor?

Just to let you know, you would not have read the new edits I added to my lengthy post. After posting it, I thought I needed to add a few things (hoping you would not read it before I did), but at that moment my wife called me away for a haircut and I couldn't get back to it before you had evidently read the original. I didn't notice your reaction to it until after I had saved my new edit.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I know what you're talking about. But were there never such things happening in the Mennonite congregations you were part of?

I think what you describe is a common human failing. I've seen it in various places, not only in religious communities, but in many others. I recall my last interaction with a brother who had been a good priesthood class instructor, and we had a conversation at the workplace in which the subject of the supreme court decision regarding the "personhood" of corporations came up. He disparaged the decision in favor of personhood, and when I disagreed with him, he got this disgusted and betrayed look on his face, broke off the discussion and walked away. He avoided me steadfastly after that, and his church attendance, formerly spotty anyway, fell off entirely. Was I the cause? I don't know, but he clearly regarded me as 2/3 a Latter-day Saint, not because of my faith, but because of my politics.

The same thing occurs when a "person of color" is found to be supporting the "wrong" political party. Suddenly he or she is no longer black, or whatever color they were previously. 

Odd notion, that in bold. And definitely silly. After all, we allow our under-8 year old children to partake of the sacrament even though as unbaptized persons, they don't yet have a baptismal covenant with the Lord to renew, and as not yet accountable, Christ's Atonement covers their transgressions, so they also have no repentance to offer. Thus they, too, are pretending, but we don't prevent them, or tell them they're pretending.

Back when I was a branch president in 1983, the instruction we had received regarding non-members partaking of the sacrament was that we were not to forbid them, and if anything were to be said prior to its administration about it, we might announce it as follows: "And now we will administer the sacrament to the members of the Church." And then, if any non-members present felt inclined to partake anyway, that was their choice. I haven't heard that form of announcement again in many many years.

When I was a missionary in Germany back in the 1970s, we were teaching one family whose husband had acquired a strong testimony of the Church, but his wife hadn't yet arrived to that point. He preferred not to be baptized until his wife could join him, but wanted to partake of the sacrament anyway. We explained to him that since he was not yet a member of the church, partaking wouldn't mean the same as it would to a member, but if he wanted to, no-one would forbid him. Accordingly, he began taking the sacrament when they attended sacrament meeting. 

The thing is, one should understand what one is doing.

If I were to attend a Catholic mass, would I feel OK with receiving the Eucharist? Having never considered this before, my inclination is to not being OK with it. For one thing, Catholic rules regarding this say I shouldn't. The person must be baptized Catholic to receive it. Would the priest tell me that as a non-Catholic I am just pretending if I receive it? He might. Would he be justified in saying so? Perhaps so. But if one were to partake anyway, out of a feeling of one-ness with the Savior, or solidarity with the Church?

The Apostle Paul had this to say about it:

But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. (1 Cor. 11:28-30)

What constitutes "unworthily"? For the Catholic, besides being a baptized Catholic, the person "must be in a state of grace and has been through the Sacrament of Reconciliation (i.e. not be aware of any unconfessed mortal sins)." 

And yet it seems that there might be "a specific church" with specific authority. When Paul encountered some disciples who had not received the Holy Ghost since they believed, and hadn't even heard of the Holy Ghost though they had been baptized "unto John’s baptism," he seemed to take the tack that they hadn't been baptized by proper authority, and so re-baptized them. Whereupon they were blessed by Paul and received the Holy Ghost. 

One cannot say that Christ "never named a specific Church" because there was only one Church when he was in mortality. And there was only one Church immediately after his Resurrection, too. Yet we know from John's revelation that none of the seven churches in Asia (called Asia Minor in our day) escaped some form of rebuke for apostasy or falling away. Were they not becoming other churches when John wrote to them? And falling away were they still "the Church" when they were permitting such things as a "prophetess" who was using harlotry as a sacrament of some sort? 

I realize that there is a strong component of egalitarianism in the ecumenical movement that urges acceptance as a Christian every religious adherent that at least acknowledges Christ as the Savior. But that is undeniably a man-made movement. When Christ said in Matthew 11:

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Did he mean to say that everyone could join whatever faction of Christianity that would ever exist and they were all equally authoritative and approved by Him? I don't see it. He said at that time, in effect, "Join my church," and since there was only the one, of which He and His apostles were the overseers of, there was no doubt which one He meant. 

Paul made it clear that that situation would change:

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. (Acts 20:28-30)

Were the organizations founded by men speaking perverse things still "the Church", with all the authority thereof? And how do we know that the those perverted things being spoken did not become accepted as the truth in the new churches that arose? The divisions between all of them seem to indicate, to me at least, that they weren't. 

It is absolutely true that Christ will decide such things. 

But do we not have an obligation to do our best to find out what Christ wants for us in this life? Would He not seek to lead us to the full truth or as much as we can find while we are here? And if we don't seek His guidance in that quest are we not disobeying His admonition, "Follow me"?

You see, I have finally addressed what you wrote more completely! My apologies for the long post!

Best wishes to you, too!

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate it. I would simply offer a bit of a different perspective on one thing you said. The church that was founded by Christ was indeed the world-wide community of Christians for its time. It started with a few and grew to a few more. Then more and more joined but it was still a small group that composed the ekklesia - the church universal. Granted the universe of that church was small, but it slowly began to diversify. Even in New Testament times we had Judaizers and Gentile-seekers. We had animist converts and those who were of Peter and of Paul. or Apollos and on and on. The church in the four gospels was the same entity as the church in Revelation that included the various churches in Asia Minor as the church expanded.

Perhaps those who watched the transfiguration and the ascension of Christ were at that time "the church." Those who expanded into Asia Minor and Europe were still the church. At some point it had 1,000 people as adherents - I have no idea when that was. Then Greek philosophers started to take notice and men like Epictetus commented on these "Galileans." At that point, there may have been 5000 Christians in the world (just a number) who had cultural differences, and began to have doctrinal discussions and differences. That church of 5000 was still the ekklesia -the world-wide church for that date. Then they hit 5000 - 20,000 - 50,000 and on and on. More cultural discussions, more debates about what was originally intended. The church went to India, to the Goths, the Lombards, the Saxons. It expanded all over Asia. Oh my - now it is 150,000 - ever greater variations in variety, form, and doctrine. But still the ekklesia - the world-wide church. Sometime in the midst of early growth, the folks in Antioch decided to identify themselves as unique - they formed the Church of Antioch - now one branch of the tree of Christianity (the ekklesia) in the world.

Then more growth, more cultural stuff, more differences due to interpretation. Uh oh - so and so said enough of this - I am leaving and I am leaving mad. Former members of the ekklesia became more common. Oh, our mad friend? He didn't abandon Christ - he started his own institution within the ekklesia. Now part of the world-wide ekklesia - still intact as in that day on the hill of the ascension, but now with sub-groups. Sometimes adding - sometimes subtracting, but Christ and the atonement - the essence of the gospel still intact. Uh oh, now a leader went rogue in 892 CE (just a date). He got himself excommunicated - the 1000 faithful in his group chose a new leader and moved on - no longer leaderless and still a part of the ekklesia that world-wide church from that same hill. Over time this happened over and over as the church grew and new cultural norms crept into doctrine. Contemplative leaders went into caves. Doctrine became dogma and the leader of this church decided to raise an army and attack the other church (Protestants and Catholics for example) (Rome versus Albigenses for example), (Zions Camp versus Primitive Baptist for example), (those who danced against those opposed to premarital sex because it led to dancing (that is a joke)).

Now there are 1,000,000 members of that same ekklesia.  Ooops, now there are 1,000,000,000. Folks have come and gone, but the atonement, faith, grace are still the essence of the gospel. Individuals have come and gone. Some groups have split up, while others joined. Some require beards. Some forbid beards. Some are premillenial, some are amillenial, some are post-millenial/pre-trib! But corporately they still form the ekklesia, the same church as was founded by Christ. Uh oh, Martin Luther had a vision - Uh oh, Menno Simons had a competing vision - Uh oh, Juan Diego had a different vision Uh oh -  St. Faustina had a vision of hell - Uh oh, Joseph Smith had a competing vision, and on and on in the personal revelation area. Uh oh, this group has 66 books in the Scripture, this one has 85, this one used the King James version, while another spent a decade creating the Christian Standard Bible (my personal favorite). Far more important, through all those years and in all those growth pains, while individuals "apostatized" from this or that group to start their own story of the gospel - the life of Christ, the atonement the gospel has prevailed. Appendages have come and gone, and come again, but the gospel of Christ has prevailed.

That little group on the hill from Galilee, remember the ones mentioned by Epictetus - they are still alive - the church of Christ - the Christian church is still alive and growing in parts of the world that the original members didn't even know existed. They call themselves by different names, they practice different forms of worship, oh my some even dance in church! That church, founded by Christ is diverse, fussy, populated by some who are sure they are the only representatives of those on that hill, while in reality they are simply part of a group that the gates of Hell could not and did not prevail against.

One group (Antiochan Orthodox) brag they were the original subgroup. One group (Roman Catholics) brag because they are the biggest subgroup. One group (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) claims to be the only true and living church well-pleasing to Christ. One group (the Anabaptists) believes they are the most virtuous group because they are the most humble. One group (the Pentecostals) believes they have it right on the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Yet, like it or not, they are first and foremost part of that ekklesia from the hill. They collectively are what Christ Himself in Matthew, called His ekklesia (church).

One day many of those from that group on the hill will be ushered together (oh no!)  into the new Jerusalem, the church of the eternities still headed by the Godhead as it was on that hill. Oh no, even those who never knew of the ekklesia, or who never joined it will be judged as well. The good news is that while we can't even fathom the outcome, we can have assurance that they will be judged by the only one who ever lived who can balance perfect mercy and perfect righteousness. Won't that be a special day (metaphorically speaking)? Finally the true and undefiled (for the first time in history) church will be gathered from the mountains of Utah, from the jungles of Benin, the coasts of Thailand, and the vast steppes of Russia. And one more thing I am sure of - there will be no more dancing! 😁

[MiserereNobis]

9 hours ago, Navidad said:

 I find it curious to be coming from someone who is pretty harsh and judgmental towards the more liberal arm of his own faith. Your comments on this forum about post-Vatican II Catholicism are not exactly generous.

I see some legitimate issues about post-Vatican II Catholicism. It is not improper for a Catholic to point out problems and issues in the Church. Some of our most revered Saints have done so, such as Saint Francis.

I accept the second Vatican council as a legitimate council, but with ambiguities and interpretations that have caused many problems in its implementation. Change was made for the sake of change, some of which went against the actual documents of Vatican II.

I accept Pope Francis as the pope and pray for him daily. I accept the new mass as valid and have no problem attending it if the traditional Latin mass is not available. I attend a parish run by a group of priests that are in full communion with the pope (FSSP) and have been since their founding in 1988.

I think you may have me confused with other types of traditional Catholics.

9 hours ago, Navidad said:

I hear in your comments, more defense of the LDS than you defend post Vatican II Catholicism (which is most likely far more personal for you).

Well, this is an LDS board and I am defending what we have in common: the belief in an exclusive priesthood. No one here is really attacking post Vatican II Catholicism, so I don't need to defend it.

9 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am not even sure you would acknowledge that expression of your own faith as your Catholicism, since your own personal experiences, beliefs, and dogma seem to differ from that of post-Vatican II Catholicism.

See my first comment. I fully accept the Catholic Church, and that includes the second Vatican council. I am Catholic, after all.

Again, I don't think you understand my beliefs.

9 hours ago, Navidad said:

I hear what you are saying about my comments. My comments come from my own personal experiences as a step or foster child in an inconsistent LDS family. Doctrinally and dogma-wise I affirm their full Christianity. Do you?

Yes, I believe LDS are Christians. I do not believe their baptism is valid, though.

9 hours ago, Navidad said:

Is your and your church's position towards their baptism less harsh and judgmental than my position toward their inconsistency and subtle forms of go away closer dysfunction?

My point is that you have consistently judged them based on your standards of inclusivity and find them lacking and compare them to an abusive family. Your criticism of the LDS faith strikes at the core of their faith as I understand. They are essentially exclusive. If you take away their exclusive claims, they are no longer LDS. The same is true of Catholicism. The Catholic Church is officially an exclusive church, perhaps even more so since we have a closed communion. Sure, you can find Catholics who don't believe Catholicism's exclusive claims, but that's not what the Catholic Church teaches. You can find people in any religion who don't believe what their religion teaches. That doesn't mean the religion doesn't teach it, though.

9 hours ago, Navidad said:

I would suggest that your cleverly hidden judgments about their baptisms, etc.

Now this just isn't fair. Cleverly hidden? That implies deception and I have never done any such thing. Anytime the issue of the validity of baptism comes up I have always been clear that the Catholic Church does not accept LDS baptism. I have linked to the official statement on the Vatican website many times over the years. I have included lists of what Christian churches have valid baptism and which do not. I'm not hiding anything.

And you know what, it doesn't really bother LDS, because they don't believe it's true. They likewise don't accept my baptism as valid, which doesn't bother me either because they're wrong. My baptism is valid. Now, the LDS and the Catholics here don't have to go back and forth on this issue because we know it and what's the point in arguing it -- we disagree.

9 hours ago, Navidad said:

are more eternally judgmental than mine

I do not judge the eternal state of anyone. That's God's role, not mine. The Catholic Church is clear on this. We are bound by God's sacraments, but God is not bound by them.

9 hours ago, Navidad said:

As a representative of a very conservative and minority branch of Catholicism you are far more judgmental (in cloaked reality) towards the LDS than I am. You just keep it in the closet, disguised in friendly dialogue. 

There it is again. You are accusing me of hiding my judgement, of being deceptive, of cloaking my true thoughts, when I have done no such thing.

I'm issuing an official CFR here. Please provide proof that I am deceptive and hiding my judgement about the LDS. I'm serious here. Quote me doing so or retract your statement. I think it's nuts that you believe I'm having friendly dialogue here while I'm secretly rubbing my hands and thinking, "all these people are going to hell."

9 hours ago, Navidad said:

It is not their lack of inclusivity I am bemoaning  - it is their inclusivity (brother - Christian) and exclusivity (heretic - apostate) flip-flops that I am bemoaning.

I'm sorry that I misunderstood you. You have so many posts in the past where the main topic is their lack of inclusivity.

9 hours ago, Navidad said:

It is enough at times to create confusion and tears, probably something you may have experienced over the divisions within your own church?

Confusion yes, especially soon after my conversion. Tears, no. That's not something my disposition would cry over.

9 hours ago, Navidad said:

When we walk in the chapel doors on a Sunday morning at 8:45am, we are never sure what to expect or how we will feel when we leave at 11:15am. We gird our loins, so to speak for what may come.

Perhaps you should attend a different Christian church, then? If it is an abusive relationship as you've said, you should leave it. That's what people do with abusive relationships.

9 hours ago, Navidad said:

With all your interest in the LDS faith and presence on this forum - how many Sunday morning sacraments have you attended?

A few. But I see no need to go on a regular basis. I go to mass for my worship. I am Catholic, not LDS.

9 hours ago, Navidad said:

How many LDS chapel carpets have you cleaned?

None, but I'm not sure how this is relevant. Why would I clean an LDS chapel carpet?

9 hours ago, Navidad said:

LDS funerals of those with whom you have been close?

None, because no LDS close to me has died. I would certainly attend if an LDS close to me passed away and I was invited.

9 hours ago, Navidad said:

For that matter, how many mainstream post-Vatican II masses and doctrinal changes do you attend and/or affirm?  My guess (without any concrete knowledge) is that you cocoon yourself within a fairly conservative, similarly-minded community  of the Catholic faith.

I'm glad that acknowledged that you have no concrete knowledge of my beliefs and practices. I refer you to my comments above. The novus ordo Mass is valid and I will attend it if necessary. But I belong to an FSSP parish, so that is where I worship. The Catholic Church doesn't have a problem with that. Why should I? Why would I not go to my parish just to go to a different parish?

I'm again issuing an official CFR that I "cocoon" myself when it comes to my faith. Please offer evidence or retract this derogatory statement.

(Just so you know, my faith journey has led me from agnosticism through Buddhism, psychedelic spirituality, the Native American Church, to Catholicism. And it's weird to say that I cocoon myself when I spend a ton of time reading about LDS on this forum)

[mrmarklin]

An apostate is one who leaves a former belief. In my mind, one who has never been a member of the Church, cannot be an apostate because that person never believed in the first place. I would call those people unbelievers.

in a much more general sense, any Christian church that is not LDS is an apostate organization. They profess to believe, but have left the pure doctrines and practices. For most of them that was centuries ago. 
 

Christian is a very generic term. I take it to mean anyone who professes a belief in Christ. That doesn’t mean that they cannot be mistaken in their beliefs. Obviously, with all the various sects of Christianity, many are. 

Edited November 16, 2022 by mrmarklin

[Navidad]

6 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

(Just so you know, my faith journey has led me from agnosticism through Buddhism, psychedelic spirituality, the Native American Church, to Catholicism. And it's weird to say that I cocoon myself when I spend a ton of time reading about LDS on this forum)

I am not ignoring your latest reply to me. It is late here and our power just went out. I couldn't possibly reply in the half hour my battery backup affords me. Give me some time tomorrow afternoon to formulate a response to you. Thanks.

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

An apostate is one who leaves a former belief. In my mind, one who has never been a member of the Church, cannot be an apostate because that person never believed in the first place. I would call those people unbelievers.

in a much more general sense, any Christian church that is not LDS is an apostate organization. They profess to believe, but have left the pure doctrines and practices. For most of them that was centuries ago. 
 

Christian is a very generic term. I take it to mean anyone who professes a belief in Christ. That doesn’t mean that they cannot be mistaken in their beliefs. Obviously, with all the various sects of Christianity, many are. 

Thanks for your reply. It is very helpful. Take care.

[Navidad]

On 11/15/2022 at 4:52 PM, MiserereNobis said:

I see some legitimate issues about post-Vatican II Catholicism. It is not improper for a Catholic to point out problems and issues in the Church. Some of our most revered Saints have done so, such as Saint Francis.

I accept the second Vatican council as a legitimate council, but with ambiguities and interpretations that have caused many problems in its implementation. Change was made for the sake of change, some of which went against the actual documents of Vatican II.

I accept Pope Francis as the pope and pray for him daily. I accept the new mass as valid and have no problem attending it if the traditional Latin mass is not available. I attend a parish run by a group of priests that are in full communion with the pope (FSSP) and have been since their founding in 1988.

I think you may have me confused with other types of traditional Catholics.

Well, this is an LDS board and I am defending what we have in common: the belief in an exclusive priesthood. No one here is really attacking post Vatican II Catholicism, so I don't need to defend it.

See my first comment. I fully accept the Catholic Church, and that includes the second Vatican council. I am Catholic, after all.

Again, I don't think you understand my beliefs.

Yes, I believe LDS are Christians. I do not believe their baptism is valid, though.

My point is that you have consistently judged them based on your standards of inclusivity and find them lacking and compare them to an abusive family. Your criticism of the LDS faith strikes at the core of their faith as I understand. They are essentially exclusive. If you take away their exclusive claims, they are no longer LDS. The same is true of Catholicism. The Catholic Church is officially an exclusive church, perhaps even more so since we have a closed communion. Sure, you can find Catholics who don't believe Catholicism's exclusive claims, but that's not what the Catholic Church teaches. You can find people in any religion who don't believe what their religion teaches. That doesn't mean the religion doesn't teach it, though.

Now this just isn't fair. Cleverly hidden? That implies deception and I have never done any such thing. Anytime the issue of the validity of baptism comes up I have always been clear that the Catholic Church does not accept LDS baptism. I have linked to the official statement on the Vatican website many times over the years. I have included lists of what Christian churches have valid baptism and which do not. I'm not hiding anything.

And you know what, it doesn't really bother LDS, because they don't believe it's true. They likewise don't accept my baptism as valid, which doesn't bother me either because they're wrong. My baptism is valid. Now, the LDS and the Catholics here don't have to go back and forth on this issue because we know it and what's the point in arguing it -- we disagree.

I do not judge the eternal state of anyone. That's God's role, not mine. The Catholic Church is clear on this. We are bound by God's sacraments, but God is not bound by them.

There it is again. You are accusing me of hiding my judgement, of being deceptive, of cloaking my true thoughts, when I have done no such thing.

I'm issuing an official CFR here. Please provide proof that I am deceptive and hiding my judgement about the LDS. I'm serious here. Quote me doing so or retract your statement. I think it's nuts that you believe I'm having friendly dialogue here while I'm secretly rubbing my hands and thinking, "all these people are going to hell."

I'm sorry that I misunderstood you. You have so many posts in the past where the main topic is their lack of inclusivity.

Confusion yes, especially soon after my conversion. Tears, no. That's not something my disposition would cry over.

Perhaps you should attend a different Christian church, then? If it is an abusive relationship as you've said, you should leave it. That's what people do with abusive relationships.

A few. But I see no need to go on a regular basis. I go to mass for my worship. I am Catholic, not LDS.

None, but I'm not sure how this is relevant. Why would I clean an LDS chapel carpet?

None, because no LDS close to me has died. I would certainly attend if an LDS close to me passed away and I was invited.

I'm glad that acknowledged that you have no concrete knowledge of my beliefs and practices. I refer you to my comments above. The novus ordo Mass is valid and I will attend it if necessary. But I belong to an FSSP parish, so that is where I worship. The Catholic Church doesn't have a problem with that. Why should I? Why would I not go to my parish just to go to a different parish?

I'm again issuing an official CFR that I "cocoon" myself when it comes to my faith. Please offer evidence or retract this derogatory statement.

(Just so you know, my faith journey has led me from agnosticism through Buddhism, psychedelic spirituality, the Native American Church, to Catholicism. And it's weird to say that I cocoon myself when I spend a ton of time reading about LDS on this forum)

Well, that is quite a reply. Thanks for the time and attention in doing so. Let me go back to your first reply to me from the 14th. The words you used were quite strong and in no way reflected what my previous post was about. I made it clear by stating in my post that the frustration and discomfort I was expressing was not about either inclusivity or exclusivity (as you suggest). The frustration I expressed was over inconsistency which in turn creates confusion and a sense of being less than. I have tried very hard to not opine on LDS doctrine, especially exclusivity, in the last year of posting here. I certainly was guilty of that in the early years. I repented of it and if I have failed, then I apologize to you and everyone else here.

My words originated in my own experience and that of my wife. I did not mean it to be either harsh or judgmental; I meant it to be a statement, perhaps confessional of our pain. It was a reply to a previous question asked me about whether I believe there is much persecution of non-LDS Christians by LDS Christians. You can go back and check my reply, but I said that I didn't think persecution was an appropriate word, but there is a degree of "go away closer" dysfunction (I plead guilty to claiming that) in the treatment of the faithful non-member and non-investigator in an LDS environment. Was I confessing, seeking help, or venting? Probably a bit of all three is the best answer.

In your most recent reply, you asked why you would clean a carpet in an LDS ward? Cleaning the chapel in an LDS ward is a ministry, a service that is part of the responsibility of adherents. There are no professional custodians – the flock does the cleaning. I asked you the question because you were responding (from my seat) as one who is intellectually curious and stimulated by interaction with the LDS, but as one with no specific or personal emotional attachment to them—like one who has tried to minister in their midst. Without that attachment, I believe you cannot understand our situation and/or our discomfort. We are both personally and emotionally attached from our years of involvement “on the edge of inside.”

I know a bit about traditionalist Catholic beliefs and that your particular group (FSSP) has a strong enough affiliation with the Lady of Guadalupe to name your US seminary after her. On the other hand, I study Mexican Catholicism dispassionately with very little emotion, except for a growing relationship with our own rather liberal village priest. I might, in some conversation speak to you dispassionately about the Mexican Catholic perspective on the veneration of the Virgin or the concept of Cristo Rey (the name of your group’s organization in Jalisco), just like you responded to me about our situation here. If I did reply with no affect, I would miss the boat related to your own personal commitment, wouldn't I?

Rather dispassionately, you suggested I should just leave this toxic relationship. You probably are right, but again it just isn't that simple. It is in fact complicated because of where we live. 1. We can't leave the LDS presence here because it is singularly ubiquitous. 2. We, as I just implied, have both a spiritual and emotional bond formed with many of the members. I have never been one to just "walk away" from discomfort or from relationships. We need a place to worship and fellowship. That is deeply embedded in our spiritual DNA. There is not another English speaking church of any denomination within 3.5 hours of our home. I don't need English, but my wife certainly does. The ward we attend is the only worship opportunity in English within 3.5 hours. That is not a criticism, after all for a variety of our own reasons we have chosen to live in rural small-town Chihuahua.

She has very close relationships with the women of the ward who generally are a tighter knit group than are our macho ranch, rugged and perhaps more doctrinally-rigid men. That is not a criticism of them. I believe it to be an accurate description of their DNA—grandsons and great grandsons of the LDS pioneers here. Our walking away after five years might also cause some dissension among the folks in the ward and stake. We don't want to be the cause of dissension. So, it is complicated, perhaps that is why I come here and vent a bit, in my own way seeking counsel. I am not sure what to do and would sure enjoy some sage advice from the folks here beyond "just leave."

I felt you responded angrily and perhaps a bit inaccurately to me in your last posts. I could have ignored them (probably my best course of action) or defended myself (second best), but instead I responded in anger, (poor choice). I apologize to you for that. I did suggest that I believe you cloak or cocoon (in the meaning used by my deceased LDS historian friend – B. Carmon Hardy) some of what, to the best of my knowledge, is a very traditionalist Catholic doctrinal viewpoint that teaches exclusivity of salvation (Christianity in my definition) found only in the Catholic church. You acknowledge believing that our LDS friends are Christians, as I do. I am not sure what is your definition of Christian. I have seen some very generic definitions of the concept  used here on the board lately.

I also stipulate to reading some of your comments about post Vatican II developments in your own church and draw from them that you are not a big fan, perhaps even a bit critical. Hence you choose to abide in a traditionalist Catholic society, albeit one who unlike others has gained support from the Vatican itself. In my exposure (not broad), the increased Catholic ecumenism that came from the Second Vatican council is one of the things least supported by traditionalist Catholics, resulting in the creation of the various societies like FSSP which has in turn split off from others, perhaps even more conservative.

I never used the word deceitful, nor thought of the idea that you are being so in your posts. That is a bridge much too far. I have no idea how I could provide a reference or citation from your posts for what I acknowledge and agree you have not said? You don’t tell us much about your own beliefs. In that sense you cloak them. Perhaps that is simply by design or choice. It certainly does not demonstrate deceit. Part of the challenge of monological discourse is the inability to clarify meanings in real time.

In the same way, I do not believe that sharing my own lived experience within the LDS community is either judgmental or harsh. I won’t debate that with you. I acknowledge using the word “dysfunction” and likening our experience to what systems theory teaches about dysfunctional families and organizations. I am guilty as charged. I think it is a perfect metaphor for what we experience.

I don’t blame the folks. They try very hard to do and be what their church tells them to do and be. The church, in its official statements does not contemplate the “faithful non-member” who desires to use his or her spiritual gifts or resources in the support of a local ward or LDS ministry. That leaves a gap. That leaves the folks to interact based on their own individual beliefs, which in turn creates inconsistencies and causes a “go away closer” reaction.

This is nothing I haven't said to the church leaders that I have interacted with in different situations. More than an other responses, I have probably gotten back from them an agreement that our situation is not something contemplated or considered by the authorities of the church. They also consistently state that these types of situations are intended to be dealt with by local leaders. The three bishops we have voluntarily placed ourselves under over the past five years have each responded to us differently. That also causes confusion and uncertainty as we try and conform to changing realities. Take care.

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Well, that is quite a reply. Thanks for the time and attention in doing so. Let me go back to your first reply to me from the 14th. The words you used were quite strong and in no way reflected what my previous post was about. I made it clear by stating in my post that the frustration and discomfort I was expressing was not about either inclusivity or exclusivity (as you suggest).

I apologize for misunderstanding you. I think I read your previous posting history into your current post and for whatever reason reacted strongly to that.

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

My words originated in my own experience and that of my wife. I did not mean it to be either harsh or judgmental; I meant it to be a statement, perhaps confessional of our pain. It was a reply to a previous question asked me about whether I believe there is much persecution of non-LDS Christians by LDS Christians. You can go back and check my reply, but I said that I didn't think persecution was an appropriate word, but there is a degree of "go away closer" dysfunction (I plead guilty to claiming that) in the treatment of the faithful non-member and non-investigator in an LDS environment. Was I confessing, seeking help, or venting? Probably a bit of all three is the best answer.

I'm sorry I took it as judgmental. The comparison you used seemed over-the-top to me, so that's what I reacted to.

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

In your most recent reply, you asked why you would clean a carpet in an LDS ward? Cleaning the chapel in an LDS ward is a ministry, a service that is part of the responsibility of adherents. There are no professional custodians – the flock does the cleaning. I asked you the question because you were responding (from my seat) as one who is intellectually curious and stimulated by interaction with the LDS, but as one with no specific or personal emotional attachment to them—like one who has tried to minister in their midst. Without that attachment, I believe you cannot understand our situation and/or our discomfort. We are both personally and emotionally attached from our years of involvement “on the edge of inside.”

Thanks for the clarification on the carpet cleaning comment.

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I know a bit about traditionalist Catholic beliefs and that your particular group (FSSP) has a strong enough affiliation with the Lady of Guadalupe to name your US seminary after her. On the other hand, I study Mexican Catholicism dispassionately with very little emotion, except for a growing relationship with our own rather liberal village priest. I might, in some conversation speak to you dispassionately about the Mexican Catholic perspective on the veneration of the Virgin or the concept of Cristo Rey (the name of your group’s organization in Jalisco), just like you responded to me about our situation here. If I did reply with no affect, I would miss the boat related to your own personal commitment, wouldn't I?

Perhaps? I guess for me it wouldn't necessarily bother me if you spoke dispassionately. You're not Catholic -- you study it.

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Rather dispassionately, you suggested I should just leave this toxic relationship. You probably are right, but again it just isn't that simple. It is in fact complicated because of where we live. 1. We can't leave the LDS presence here because it is singularly ubiquitous. 2. We, as I just implied, have both a spiritual and emotional bond formed with many of the members. I have never been one to just "walk away" from discomfort or from relationships. We need a place to worship and fellowship. That is deeply embedded in our spiritual DNA. There is not another English speaking church of any denomination within 3.5 hours of our home. I don't need English, but my wife certainly does. The ward we attend is the only worship opportunity in English within 3.5 hours. That is not a criticism, after all for a variety of our own reasons we have chosen to live in rural small-town Chihuahua.

Fair enough. It sounds like you are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I felt you responded angrily and perhaps a bit inaccurately to me in your last posts.

Again, I apologize.

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I did suggest that I believe you cloak or cocoon (in the meaning used by my deceased LDS historian friend – B. Carmon Hardy) some of what, to the best of my knowledge, is a very traditionalist Catholic doctrinal viewpoint that teaches exclusivity of salvation (Christianity in my definition) found only in the Catholic church.

To be clear, the belief that only official members (so to speak) of the Catholic Church can be saved was declared a heresy in 1949 (see Feeneyism). This doesn't mean I believe that just anyone can make it to heaven no matter what. Salvation is still within the Catholic Church. How exactly that all works out, though, is up to God. We are bound by His sacraments, but He is not bound by them.

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

You acknowledge believing that our LDS friends are Christians, as I do. I am not sure what is your definition of Christian. I have seen some very generic definitions of the concept used here on the board lately.

I answered in the other thread you started, but I'll reply here, too. I think someone can be a Christian without having received Christian baptism. If they self-identify as a Christian and live some semblance of Christianity, I believe they are Christian.

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I also stipulate to reading some of your comments about post Vatican II developments in your own church and draw from them that you are not a big fan, perhaps even a bit critical.

Yes, I am critical of some of the changes to the Church post Vatican II. As I mentioned, some of the changes actually go against the documents of the council. "The Spirit of Vatican II" was a way of making changes that the council did not endorse and it led to doctrinal and liturgical abuses.

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hence you choose to abide in a traditionalist Catholic society, albeit one who unlike others has gained support from the Vatican itself. In my exposure (not broad), the increased Catholic ecumenism that came from the Second Vatican council is one of the things least supported by traditionalist Catholics, resulting in the creation of the various societies like FSSP which has in turn split off from others, perhaps even more conservative.

Yes, for some the increased ecumenism is an issue. But by and far the greatest issue is the major changes to liturgy that ended up watering down doctrine and Catholic identity.

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I never used the word deceitful, nor thought of the idea that you are being so in your posts.

Your use of words like "cleverly hidden" seemed to imply that I was actively hiding my beliefs from the LDS on this board, which would mean deceit.

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

You don’t tell us much about your own beliefs. In that sense you cloak them. 

I'm here to read about LDS beliefs and clarify Catholic doctrines. I'm not intentionally hiding my beliefs. I share them when it is relevant. I've also been here awhile so sometimes I don't engage in a discussion because I've discussed it many times before. For example, I no longer make arguments in favor of Trinitarianism, but I will clear up misconceptions about Trinitarianism.

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

In the same way, I do not believe that sharing my own lived experience within the LDS community is either judgmental or harsh. I won’t debate that with you. I acknowledge using the word “dysfunction” and likening our experience to what systems theory teaches about dysfunctional families and organizations. I am guilty as charged. I think it is a perfect metaphor for what we experience.

I wish you the best as you try to navigate your situation. Take care, too.

Edited November 18, 2022 by MiserereNobis

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I apologize for misunderstanding you. I think I read your previous posting history into your current post and for whatever reason reacted strongly to that.

I'm sorry I took it as judgmental. The comparison you used seemed over-the-top to me, so that's what I reacted to.

Thanks for the clarification on the carpet cleaning comment.

Perhaps? I guess for me it wouldn't necessarily bother me if you spoke dispassionately. You're not Catholic -- you study it.

Fair enough. It sounds like you are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Again, I apologize.

To be clear, the belief that only official members (so to speak) of the Catholic Church can be saved was declared a heresy in 1949 (see Feeneyism). This doesn't mean I believe that just anyone can make it to heaven no matter what. Salvation is still within the Catholic Church. How exactly that all works out, though, is up to God. We are bound by His sacraments, but He is not bound by them.

I answered in the other thread you started, but I'll reply here, too. I think someone can be a Christian without having received Christian baptism. If they self-identify as a Christian and live some semblance of Christianity, I believe they are Christian.

Yes, I am critical of some of the changes to the Church post Vatican II. As I mentioned, some of the changes actually go against the documents of the council. "The Spirit of Vatican II" was a way of making changes that the council did not endorse and it led to doctrinal and liturgical abuses.

Yes, for some the increased ecumenism is an issue. But by and far the greatest issue is the major changes to liturgy that ended up watering down doctrine and Catholic identity.

Your use of words like "cleverly hidden" seemed to imply that I was actively hiding my beliefs from the LDS on this board, which would mean deceit.

I'm here to read about LDS beliefs and clarify Catholic doctrines. I'm not intentionally hiding my beliefs. I share them when it is relevant. I've also been here awhile so sometimes I don't engage in a discussion because I've discussed it many times before. For example, I no longer make arguments in favor of Trinitarianism, but I will clear up misconceptions about Trinitarianism.

I wish you the best as you try to navigate your situation. Take care, too.

Thank you.

[InCognitus]

In researching another matter, I came across the following article from the Church Newsroom that I saved on my hard drive that's relevant to this thread that might help dispel a few "myths" of the Great Apostasy.

This is from a 2009 Church Newsroom article titled:   Authority in the Church.  The link in my post is using the internet archive article.   I've included the entire article below for convenience:

Quote

Authority in the Church

• Christian churches regard the question of authority — the divine right to preach, act in the name of God and direct the Lord’s church — in different ways. Some, like the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Coptic churches, emphasize a continuous line of authority from the early apostles. Some who broke away from those churches say they find authority in the inerrancy of the Bible. Others rely heavily on a sense of “calling” to the ministry. Latter-day Saints have a distinctive view of priesthood authority that helps define them.
• The New Testament describes the church established by Jesus Christ as one with structure and form. The apostles were at its head, and as recipients both of ordained authority and revelation, they were charged with guiding the church and keeping its doctrines pure as it expanded throughout the known world. 
• The fact that the original church of Jesus Christ would eventually fall into a state of apostasy was foretold by ancient prophets and by the apostles in Christ’s day.
• Although Latter-day Saints believe that divine authority was lost in the ancient church after the death of the apostles and required a restoration by divine intervention, they do not dismiss or diminish the validity of other people’s religious experiences:
  • Much of the true doctrine taught by Jesus Christ is found in churches today.
  • Members of other churches who accept Jesus Christ and try to live by the principles he taught are entitled to divine guidance and inspiration in their lives.
  • Faithful Christians who are not Latter-day Saints still go to heaven, and those who live according to all the truth and light they have will open themselves to further light in the hereafter.
  • Anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Redeemer of the world is a Christian, regardless of differences in theology.
  • The Bible is a revelation from God, of immense value for the powerful impact it has to change the lives of men and women. It is not diminished by the existence of additional scripture.

• For Latter-day Saints, the restoration of priesthood authority in the first half of the 19th century was a literal act through angelic visitations from those who held the authority anciently. Divine authority was restored to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints through a visitation of the resurrected John the Baptist in 1829 near Harmony (now Oakland), Pennsylvania, and sometime afterwards through the appearance of the resurrected ancient apostles Peter, James and John.
• Today, all members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who hold the priesthood trace their authority directly to these visitations and bestowal of the priesthood of God on Joseph Smith and early leaders of the Church. A person receiving the priesthood today customarily sits while a person who already holds the priesthood stands and places his hands on the recipient’s head and formally confers that authority.
• The “Apostolic Keys” of priesthood authority today — by which is meant the right to direct the Church — are believed to be vested in the modern apostles in the same way that the ancient apostles had the authority to direct the early church.

Continuous line of authority 

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism
• http://newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm (see under “VI. Apostolate and Episcopate”)
• http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/orthodoxy.aspx
• http://www.coptic.net/EncyclopediaCoptica/

Inerrancy of the Bible

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy

Calling to the ministry

• www.albertmohler.com/article_read.php?cid=9

Scriptures foretelling apostasy

2 Thessalonians 2:3

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Isaiah 60:2

For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.

Isaiah 24:5

The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.

1 Timothy 4:1

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

The validity of other people’s religious experiences

• “The inquiry is frequently made of me, ‘Wherein do you differ from others in your religious views?’ In reality and essence we do not differ so far in our religious views, but that we could all drink into one principle of love. One of the grand fundamental principles of ‘Mormonism’ is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.” Joseph Smith, quoted in History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2nded. (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1949), 5:499.

• “We have come not to take away from you the truth and virtue you possess. We have come not to find fault with you nor to criticize you. We have not come here to berate you. … Keep all the good that you have, and let us bring to you more good.” President George Albert Smith, quoted in Sharing the Gospel with Others, comp. Preston Nibley (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1948), 12-13; italics added.

• “The line of priesthood authority was broken. But mankind was not left in total darkness or completely without revelation or inspiration. The idea that with the Crucifixion of Christ the heavens were closed and that they opened in the First Vision is not true. The Light of Christ would be everywhere present to attend the children of God; the Holy Ghost would visit seeking souls. The prayers of the righteous would not go unanswered.” Boyd K. Packer, “The Light of Christ,” Ensign, Apr. 2005, 11.

• “Informed Latter-day Saints do not argue that historic Christianity lost all truth or became completely corrupt. The orthodox churches may have lost the ‘fullness’ of the gospel, but they did not lose all of it nor even most of it. Many Evangelicals caricature or overstate the actual LDS view, which is that the orthodox churches are incomplete rather than corrupt. It is their postbiblical creeds that are identified in Joseph Smith’s first vision as an ‘abomination,’ but certainly not their individual members or their members’ biblical beliefs.” Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson, How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 61.

I think this is a clear explanation of the position of the church toward other faiths related to the topic of the Great Apostasy. 

Edited November 25, 2022 by InCognitus

[3DOP]

On 11/18/2022 at 4:25 PM, MiserereNobis said:

I apologize for misunderstanding you. I think I read your previous posting history into your current post and for whatever reason reacted strongly to that.

I'm sorry I took it as judgmental. The comparison you used seemed over-the-top to me, so that's what I reacted to.

Thanks for the clarification on the carpet cleaning comment.

Perhaps? I guess for me it wouldn't necessarily bother me if you spoke dispassionately. You're not Catholic -- you study it.

Fair enough. It sounds like you are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Again, I apologize.

To be clear, the belief that only official members (so to speak) of the Catholic Church can be saved was declared a heresy in 1949 (see Feeneyism). This doesn't mean I believe that just anyone can make it to heaven no matter what. Salvation is still within the Catholic Church. How exactly that all works out, though, is up to God. We are bound by His sacraments, but He is not bound by them.

I answered in the other thread you started, but I'll reply here, too. I think someone can be a Christian without having received Christian baptism. If they self-identify as a Christian and live some semblance of Christianity, I believe they are Christian.

Yes, I am critical of some of the changes to the Church post Vatican II. As I mentioned, some of the changes actually go against the documents of the council. "The Spirit of Vatican II" was a way of making changes that the council did not endorse and it led to doctrinal and liturgical abuses.

Yes, for some the increased ecumenism is an issue. But by and far the greatest issue is the major changes to liturgy that ended up watering down doctrine and Catholic identity.

Your use of words like "cleverly hidden" seemed to imply that I was actively hiding my beliefs from the LDS on this board, which would mean deceit.

I'm here to read about LDS beliefs and clarify Catholic doctrines. I'm not intentionally hiding my beliefs. I share them when it is relevant. I've also been here awhile so sometimes I don't engage in a discussion because I've discussed it many times before. For example, I no longer make arguments in favor of Trinitarianism, but I will clear up misconceptions about Trinitarianism.

I wish you the best as you try to navigate your situation. Take care, too.

Navidad said to MiserereNobis...you don't tell us much about your beliefs. In that sense you are cloaking them....no quotes. Paraphrase.

Not speaking for anybody but me...I am delighted if there were interest in my beliefs. I love to explain my beliefs and practices to anyone interested. But this being an LDS board, I refrain. At least I try to refrain.

Who here has an interest in Vatican 2, or Archbishop Bugnini and his new Mass, or that Cardinal Ratzinger/Benedict XVI called it a banal, on the spot product? Who that is LDS or Mennonite (!) could care about or understand that? I am here because the LDS present a plausible case for a one true church....if there was a great apostasy as non-Catholic Christianity implies. 

It would be absurd to argue with LDS or Protestants about ecumenical councils or liturgy. How could they have an opinion?  "Cloaking" isn't malicious. It is recognizing lack of interest. If anyone here wants to discuss Vatican 2, the liturgy, ecumenism, religious liberty, modernism, or anything else that has led me to where I am, all anyone needs to do is ask.

Cloaked with no dagger, and in good will towards all here, trying to present the best option, if we do not need to believe that early Christianity was apostate,

3DOP

PS: Calm, you are so good to me. I edited since you gave your support (again). It was for the purpose of emphasizing that the only question between us is the apostasy. Yes or no. I will not attempt to solve that question in this postscript.

PPS: Robert F. Smith, is he okay? He seems to have absented himself lately.

Edited November 25, 2022 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

8 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Navidad said to MiserereNobis...you don't tell us much about your beliefs. In that sense you are cloaking them....no quotes. Paraphrase.

Not speaking for anybody but me...I am delighted if there were interest in my beliefs. I love to explain my beliefs and practices to anyone interested. But this being an LDS board, I refrain. At least I try to refrain.

Who here has an interest in Vatican 2, or Archbishop Bugnini and his new Mass, or that Cardinal Ratzinger/Benedict XVI called it a banal, on the spot product? Who that is LDS or Mennonite (!) could care about or understand that? I am here because the LDS present a plausible case for a one true church....if there was a great apostasy as non-Catholic Christianity implies. 

It would be absurd to argue with LDS or Protestants about ecumenical councils or liturgy. How could they have an opinion?  "Cloaking" isn't malicious. It is recognizing lack of interest. If anyone here wants to discuss Vatican 2, the liturgy, ecumenism, religious liberty, modernism, or anything else that has led me to where I am, all anyone needs to do is ask.

Cloaked with no dagger, and in good will towards all here, trying to present the best option, if we do not need to believe that early Christianity was apostate,

3DOP

PS: Calm, you are so good to me. I edited since you gave your support (again). It was for the purpose of emphasizing that the only question between us is the apostasy. Yes or no. I will not attempt to solve that question in this postscript.

PPS: Robert F. Smith, is he okay? He seems to have absented himself lately.

Navidad, hi.

I used your name and your conversation with Miserere as an opportunity to express why I would be forthcoming with anyone here who had any interest in where I go to Mass, including you. But for most or alI folks here, it would be uninteresting. I did not mean my post to be a dig at you.

Regards,

Rory

 

[InCognitus]

8 hours ago, 3DOP said:

PPS: Robert F. Smith, is he okay? He seems to have absented himself lately

I've been wondering the same thing for a while now.

[Calm]

8 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Calm, you are so good to me.

And you are a good friend to me.  I am so grateful you stick around and bear with us as I have learned so much (plus it is just fun talking with you and MN and the other nonLDS that have been patient enough to hang out with us semi heathens  ) and only wish I was set up for a long discussion about Vatican 2, etc. these days.  Everything I have learned about Catholicism has enriched me.

[Calm]

Robert has an email listed here if someone wants to contact him:

https://interpreterfoundation.org/author/roberts/

His profile has him last visiting in June…his ‘vacations’ from us are typically shorter.

He posted in October on the Interpreter blog:

https://interpreterfoundation.org/royal-skousen-presentation-on-the-current-status-of-the-book-of-mormon-critical-text-project/

Edited November 25, 2022 by Calm

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Navidad, hi.

I used your name and your conversation with Miserere as an opportunity to express why I would be forthcoming with anyone here who had any interest in where I go to Mass, including you. But for most or alI folks here, it would be uninteresting. I did not mean my post to be a dig at you.

Regards,

Rory

 

I did not take it as a dig. I found it very interesting. I, for one am always interested in learning more about any faith. I am also fascinated by your personal journey since I personally know those from whence you have come. It seems you have stayed on the conservative or traditionalist side of wherever you have journeyed. I am a mix of conservative/traditional and progressive. I am also interested in realizing from you, Miserere, the Catholic leaders in our area, and from the Antiochan Orthodox group I was was familiar with, the great diversity in the Catholic/Orthodox tradition, especially post Vatican II. I find the diversity rich, especially as some take a very monolithic view of Catholicism in history and in the world today. I am also fascinated by the spiritual journey of those Catholics like G. K. Chesterton, one of my very favorite authors.

Did you know I once published a feature article in Catholic Digest? I got a personal call from the Archbishop of Philadelphia about that, telling me how much he enjoyed the article! That was a treat since I grew up in the Philly area. Take care.