What Can Faithful Non-Members Do in the Spiritual Life and Ministry of a Ward or Stake?

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Bernard, hi. 

I so don't understand how your fellow religionists fail to allow the LDS Church to deny the Spirit of Vatican II. How does Vatican II have an iota of significance to the Restored Church of the Latter-day Saints?

I am trying to appreciate your apparent acceptance of the comment of Miserere Nobis about the Second Vatican Council and his rejection of a so-called spirit of the Council. There is tension among Catholics about this. But I am not seeing any similar tension among LDS. It cannot be about Vatican II. Are you saying that LDS have a comparable tension about something?

I was responding to this…

Quote

I do not accept the "Spirit of Vatican II." Catholics should follow the teachings of Holy Mother Church for both doctrine and liturgy.

Some LDS do not believe it is necessary to follow our doctrine and liturgy as we define it, but rather as circumstances, trends, or other worldly variables might dictate. Sorry for the confusion.

[Bernard Gui]

18 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Yes. "Host" would be the more  usual nomenclature among those who believe in the Real Presence. But hearing some speak of a consecrated host as a wafer reveals a lack of the requisite belief or understanding to receive Holy Communion.

Catholics cannot be offended that non Catholics are unfamiliar with our beliefs or our nomenclature. The reason I took note of the language in question was because it seemed to me to be a sign of the perfectly understandable lack of Catholic belief on the part of a well meaning visitor. 

 

Thank you for the clarification.

[3DOP]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"Host" was commonly used for both the consecrated and unconsecrated Eucharist iirc.  Fifty years ago?

 

I also think it is common to refer to a box of communion wafers. There is a definite sense in how our language is used to indicate what is being baked, boxed, or shipped as being ordinary, a wafer. But once it has been placed on the altar it becomes something more sacred, intended to be the most Holy sacrifice that the faithful, in union with the priest can offer.

Here is how the priest speaks in our behalf, of the as yet, unconconsecrated host while bowing before the host and the chalice:

"In a spirit of humility and with a contrite heart, may we be accepted by Thee, O Lord, and may our sacrifice be so offered in The sight this day that it may please There, O Lord God.

 

Then raising his eyes and blessing the offering he says:

"Come, O Sanctifier, Almighty and Eternal God, and bless this Sacrifice prepared for The holy Name."

Maybe this can give a reason for why we use different language, that distinguishes a box of wafers, from a host on the altar, which, God be praised, will become in an ineffable mystery, the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary, and our heavenly bread. 

Edited January 1, 2023 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I was responding to this…

Some LDS do not believe it is necessary to follow our doctrine and liturgy as we define it, but rather as circumstances, trends, or other worldly variables might dictate. Sorry for the confusion.

Bernard...I was unfamiliar with  comparable tensions among LDS, that Catholics today experience...thanks for the clarification.

--------

Sometimes, the spirit, allegedly Holy, has been invoked as a reason to do or believe that which was formerly thought to be unholy. This is my problem with modern Catholics.

How can an act that was once declared to be a sin that "cries to heaven for vengeance", become through some process an act of virtue that is compatible with what was sinful before? 

For instance, if God has always approved of LHBtq+%€, great. Just start a new church that that takes that moral position. The Catholic Church would be disqualified as any kind of Christian Church because of its horrific record of condemnation of something God loves and approves. Why do the enlightened wish to try to have continuity with some group that maliciously hated for centuries what God has always loved?

It is bewildering. But that is what most Catholics seem to want including pope and bishops. I am an old man now. I don't know how both modern Rome and ancient Rome can both be true.

I don't have any big problem about any of these things that modern Catholics want. Bit let's not pretend that the Catholic Church can celebrate what was formerly sinful. I don't hate homosexuals. I don't care if there is another capital punishment. I just want the faith of my fathers.

I know the Catholic Church is good and true. But if she has been malevolent towards criminals or homosexuals or anybody, I am lost. I turn elsewhere. I just think for now that these modern changers who have no concern for the past are wrong. They have cut themselves off from their fathers. I will not follow, though an apparent pope should try to lead me.

 

Edited January 1, 2023 by 3DOP
Clarification

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Bernard...I was unfamiliar with  comparable tensions among LDS, that Catholics today experience...thanks for the clarification.

--------

Sometimes, the spirit, allegedly Holy, has been invoked as a reason to do or believe that which was formerly thought to be unholy. This is my problem with modern Catholics.

How can an act that was once declared to be a sin that "cries to heaven for vengeance", become through some process an act of virtue that is compatible with what was sinful before? 

For instance, if God has always approved of LHBtq+%€, great. Just start a new church that that takes that moral position. The Catholic Church would be disqualified as any kind of Christian Church because of its horrific record of condemnation of something God loves and approves. Why do the enlightened wish to try to have continuity with some group that maliciously hated for centuries what God has always loved?

It is bewildering. But that is what most Catholics seem to want including pope and bishops. I am an old man now. I don't know how both modern Rome and ancient Rome can both be true.

I don't have any big problem about any of these things that modern Catholics want. Bit let's not pretend that the Catholic Church can celebrate what was formerly sinful. I don't hate homosexuals. I don't care if there is another capital punishment. I just want the faith of my fathers.

I know the Catholic Church is good and true. But if she has been malevolent towards criminals or homosexuals or anybody, I am lost. I turn elsewhere. I just think for now that these modern changers who have no concern for the past are wrong. They have cut themselves off from their fathers. I will not follow, though an apparent pope should try to lead me.

 

Thank you for these comments. I understand what you are saying. I’m getting old, too, and sometimes I feel that the Church has left me behind. That’s definitely the feeling about my Alma Mater, BYU. I don’t recognize it any more. Perhaps this is the way it’s supposed to be. Out with the old, in with the new.

And sadly, I’ve observed the decades-long evolution of this board from a formidable  defender of the faith against non-member critics to a constant barrage of complaints from our own brothers and sisters. 

[Chum]

55 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

And sadly, I’ve observed the decades-long evolution of this board from a formidable  defender of the faith against non-member critics to a constant barrage of complaints from our own brothers and sisters. 

So basically ward council then.

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 1/1/2023 at 3:45 AM, Navidad said:

Is the mode and meaning of baptism a matter (pun intended) of importance to God? I would split my answer in two. Baptism is a metaphor for several things ...

Is the mode important to Him? No, I don't think so ...

Is it a means or part of the salvific process, or is it a testimony of an already established faith and commitment? ... I do not believe it is salvific. Will that impact my future destiny because of its importance to God? I don't know, but I am more than willing to submit to a merciful God for my eternal destiny. If there are no Mennonites, Mormons, or Methodists in the heavens, as I believe - there will be no Mennonite, Mormon, or Methodist baptisms or sacraments in heaven.

Thank you for this quintessentially Protestant response and its exploration of a decidedly Protestant God!

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

And sadly, I’ve observed the decades-long evolution of this board from a formidable  defender of the faith against non-member critics to a constant barrage of complaints from our own brothers and sisters. 

And as the content grows more and more 'progressive', the board grows less and less engaging.

Edited January 2, 2023 by Hamba Tuhan

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

And as the content grows more and more 'progressive', the board grows less and less engaging.

I fear we will not become One as we have been commanded any time in the near future unless there are BoM-like changes. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

I fear we will not become One as we have been commanded any time in the near future unless there are BoM-like changes. 

Mercifully, the character of this board does not reflect the reality of my ward!

[Navidad]

12 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

And as the content grows more and more 'progressive', the board grows less and less engaging.

I am not sure that what is more progressive is less engaging (at least for me). I don't quite understand that idea. I am a mixture of progressive and conservative, depending on the subject and matter at hand. I am most likely more conservative than progressive, however I reject the extremes and those who are pundits for the extremes of both. I am also on the older side of life.

Since I am predominantly conservative I find the progressive perspectives quite engaging as they teach me how people who are not me think, believe, and construct their own truth. I find that extremely educational and engaging. That doesn't mean I am required to agree, accept, or in some cases condone. It means I can walk away from the discussion pondering, thinking, and reflecting on my own beliefs as well as those who aren't me. Of course humans who are not me will not agree with me. That is what makes them so engaging! Take care.

[Navidad]

10 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Mercifully, the character of this board does not reflect the reality of my ward!

I think the character of this board has changed in the five years I have been here. It is much more civil, reflective, kind, and less apologetic and polemic for whatever is the issue. That makes it much more appealing to me and has taught me my own need to change in the same way. There have been many times while away from the board that I have regretted what, or in what manner I have communicated while on it. That realization has made me a better person and a better Christian. If anything, that probably makes God anthropomorphically smile!

[Amulek]

On 12/31/2022 at 1:48 PM, Navidad said:

Anyone who claimed that authority as their own was or is a fraud. 

I agree. Where we disagree, no doubt, is with respect to the set of people who have "claimed that authority as their own."

 

On 12/31/2022 at 1:48 PM, Navidad said:

The Holy Spirit works to authorize Christ's authority for human ministry as He wills. Southern Baptists didn't create authority to minister in Christ's name. Christ did, then He left us. The Holy Spirit came. He has and will continue to work in our lives and to ensure the continuity of the ekklesia, the great church of all those redeemed by the Lamb.

I understand this is what you believe. And I understand why Protestants and other reformist sects need to believe it - because there's no way to harmonize priesthood authority out of the Bible.

And since you can't claim institutional authority as the Catholics / Orthodox / LDS do, there is a need to explain how priesthood authority can be claimed outside of the institutional church that Christ founded. 

But at the end of the day, this idea of a Spirit-led scattergram of independently claimed priesthood authority is merely just a statement of faith - not a fact. 

 

On 12/31/2022 at 1:48 PM, Navidad said:

Can someone claim authority on their own today? Of course. Is that authority valid? Absolutely not!

As of 2019 there were something like 45,000 different Christian denominations (source) - no doubt the number is even larger today. 

Can you provide me with a list of which of these were started by individuals who "claim[ed] authority on their own" and which were authorized by the Holy Spirt?

 

On 12/31/2022 at 1:48 PM, Navidad said:

Bottom line, authority to minister for God comes from God. Methinks He does not smile when we shout I am of Peter! I am of Paul! I am of Apollos! 

Methinks he smiles even less when people claim to represent him without actually being authorized to do so.

 

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

But at the end of the day, this idea of a Spirit-led scattergram of independently claimed priesthood authority is merely just a statement of faith - not a fact. 

Neither of our beliefs is a fact. The very existence of priesthood is a statement of faith. I stipulate to that. Will you?

As I think about it, I have never met anyone who "independently claimed priesthood authority." I am not sure what you mean by independently? Independent of the Holy Spirit? Independent of the laying on of hands by those who are led by the Holy Spirit to do so? Or simply independent of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? A bishop of the Mennonite Church USA laid his hands on me to grant me ministerial authority within the Mennonite church with the approval of elders and a congregation. Is that an "independently claimed priesthood?

 

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

As of 2019 there were something like 45,000 different Christian denominations (source) - no doubt the number is even larger today. 

Can you provide me with a list of which of these were started by individuals who "claim[ed] authority on their own" and which were authorized by the Holy Spirt?

 

That is not a question looking for an answer, is it? I am not sure what the 45,000 different denominations have to do with the discussion of how one obtains priesthood authority? My guess is there are fakers and charlatans in every one of the 45,000 different denominations (a number I highly doubt is accurate), including in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

Methinks he smiles even less when people claim to represent him without actually being authorized to do so.

I agree with that statement. Do I represent Him without actually being authorized by anyone in the LDS church to do so? Perhaps we should get down to the nitty gritty of your beliefs about me? Is my name on the list you would like to see?

[Amulek]

58 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Neither of our beliefs is a fact. The very existence of priesthood is a statement of faith. I stipulate to that. Will you?

I suppose that depends on how one defines the word fact. 

If a fact is something that "has the quality of being actual," then no, I wouldn't agree that priesthood exists as only a mater of faith. 

 

58 minutes ago, Navidad said:

As I think about it, I have never met anyone who "independently claimed priesthood authority." I am not sure what you mean by independently? Independent of the Holy Spirit? Independent of the laying on of hands by those who are led by the Holy Spirit to do so? Or simply independent of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? A bishop of the Mennonite Church USA laid his hands on me to grant me ministerial authority within the Mennonite church with the approval of elders and a congregation. Is that an "independently claimed priesthood?

Okay, so who laid hands on the very first Mennonite bishop that ever existed?

And who laid hands on him?

You see, if institutional authority is only a requirement to obtain ministerial authority within pre-existing institutions, then all one needs to do to obtain ministerial authority under the reformist's paradigm is to start your own institution. I mean, that's literally how all of the Protestant and other reformationist denominations came into existence in the first place, right? And if that's really how things work, then there's nothing preventing new denominations from being formed anywhere and at any time - even by ten year olds.  

 

58 minutes ago, Navidad said:

That is not a question looking for an answer, is it?

Is it a question that you believe is answerable? 

 

58 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Do I represent Him without actually being authorized by anyone in the LDS church to do so?

As a disciple or follower of Christ, yes - you absolutely represent Him in that capacity.

 

58 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Perhaps we should get down to the nitty gritty of your beliefs about me?

Okay. I'm not really interested in personalizing the discussion, but if you want to ask questions that you might not like the answer to, don't get upset when someone actually answers them. 

 

58 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Is my name on the list you would like to see?

There is no valid priesthood authority outside of the institutional church that Christ himself reorganized on the earth through the Prophet Joseph. 

Does that answer your question?

 

[pogi]

On 1/1/2023 at 4:50 PM, Bernard Gui said:

And sadly, I’ve observed the decades-long evolution of this board from a formidable  defender of the faith against non-member critics to a constant barrage of complaints from our own brothers and sisters. 

I'm not sure specifically what you are talking about here regarding a "barrage of complaints from our own brothers and sisters", but I suspect I am lingering in that thought somewhere.  

Perhaps what you are judging as "constant barrage of complaints", is a spiritual maturing that is able to engage with ambiguity that accepts prophetic fallibility - not in some theoretic sense, where we acknowledge that prophets are fallible, but incapable of ever saying they are wrong, rendering prophetic fallibility meaningless and entirely abstract. 

I see a new wave of Mormonism that is stepping up and will save the faith from the more traditionalist/fundamentalist old-school apologetic approach that defends EVERY SINGLE word of EVERY prophet and tries to reconcile old teachings with modern policies/teachings.  I see an approach of faithful, fully engaged, fully active, fully believing members who don't need to defend everything.  Members are becoming disillusioned to the more traditional approach, and I am trying to create a bed for them (and myself) to fall back on that remains faithful.  One that steps back from surety and steps into faith, which requires uncertainty - a faith which can endure the ups and downs that are inherent in the balance between the prophetic mantle and prophetic fallibility.  It is a faith that is both self-reliant and interdependent on prophets. It is a faith that heeds the words of the prophets but does not blindly follow or defend every word as if their faith/church depends upon it (it shouldn't).  It is a faith that can say "I think that was a mistake" without cracking our foundation.  It is a more enduring faith in that way.   I am concerned that people are misconstruing the acknowledgment of prophetic fallibility with "complaints".  It is not done in the spirit of complaining, but in the spirit of sustaining a more realistic concept of a human prophet.  This is the kind of prophet that I sustain, and love and heed - one that I can disagree with.  Nothing else will do. 

 

Edited January 3, 2023 by pogi

[bluebell]

On 1/1/2023 at 4:50 PM, Bernard Gui said:

And sadly, I’ve observed the decades-long evolution of this board from a formidable  defender of the faith against non-member critics to a constant barrage of complaints from our own brothers and sisters. 

As critical non-members have dwindled in attendance on the board it has meant that we have had more of an ability to talk among ourselves as faithful members.  That kind of "family communication" will always include analysis, disagreement, and some venting (in healthy relationships anyway).

But this idea that some posters have--that the fewer people who agree with me = the more people who have gone astray--is more of an indication of their own issues than of anyone else's commitment to or testimony of the gospel and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[Navidad]

7 hours ago, Amulek said:

There is no valid priesthood authority outside of the institutional church that Christ himself reorganized on the earth through the Prophet Joseph. 

Does that answer your question?

That answer doesn't offend me at all. I simply don't agree with you. As you don't with me. Based on simple dogma, you can't possibly know or understand the spiritual experiences I have known, the presence of the Holy Spirit in my life, or the joy of ministry I have known via the ministerial priesthood in my life. Yesterday I attended a celebration of the retirement of the priest in our village. He wept as he talked about his years in our community. The people wept as well, as I did. He is a sterling example of the meaning and joy of the ministerial priesthood in the Catholic church.  We two pretenders wept and hugged. For you to deny that all of that is true in my and his life is a reflection on your dogma, not on the validity and reality of my or his lived experience in the ministerial priesthood in my or his church. So no, I am not offended at all. I doubt that he would be either.

You have not mentioned in our dialogue the role you do believe the Holy Spirit plays in the granting of priesthood authority in the LDS church. Does every male who is baptized and confirmed in the LDS church hold the LDS priesthood regardless of a lack of commitment, faith, integrity, actual service, and consistency? An eight year old is baptized and confirmed, holds the priesthood, then becomes an Aaronic priest and then may or may not be granted the Melchizedek priesthood? How many men or youth in good standing in the church are refused the advancement to the Melchizedek priesthood, by which authority, and for what reason? Can a bishop block someone from achieving the Melchizedek priesthood which I more or less gather is the priesthood you are talking about? Is there a way for such a person to remain in the church, lose his priesthood, but not his membership? I would guess less than one percent of the folks in my churches have been blessed by the Holy Spirit with being granted the ministerial priesthood. What is the percentage in the LDS church (males)?

You have not mentioned the Royal Priesthood (I don't think). Any room for a non-LDS member to hold the royal priesthood discussed in a letter written by the very Peter who held the keys? Do faithful and devout female members hold the royal priesthood in your church? Lots of questions. Thanks for your candid reply to me. Again, no offense taken.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

As critical non-members have dwindled in attendance on the board it has meant that we have had more of an ability to talk among ourselves as faithful members.  That kind of "family communication" will always include analysis, disagreement, and some venting (in healthy relationships anyway).

But this idea that some posters have--that the fewer people who agree with me = the more people who have gone astray--is more of an indication of their own issues than of anyone else's commitment to or testimony of the gospel and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Well, no, that’s not the idea that “some posters” have nor does it indicate anything about their issues, whatever one thinks they might be. But it surely is an accurate long-term observation of the devolution of the board. More’s the pity.

 

 

Edited January 3, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I'm not sure specifically what you are talking about here regarding a "barrage of complaints from our own brothers and sisters", but I suspect I am lingering in that thought somewhere.  

Perhaps what you are judging as "constant barrage of complaints", is a spiritual maturing that is able to engage with ambiguity that accepts prophetic fallibility - not in some theoretic sense, where we acknowledge that prophets are fallible, but incapable of ever saying they are wrong, rendering prophetic fallibility meaningless and entirely abstract. 

I see a new wave of Mormonism that is stepping up and will save the faith from the more traditionalist/fundamentalist old-school apologetic approach that defends EVERY SINGLE word of EVERY prophet and tries to reconcile old teachings with modern policies/teachings.  I see an approach of faithful, fully engaged, fully active, fully believing members who don't need to defend everything.  Members are becoming disillusioned to the more traditional approach, and I am trying to create a bed for them (and myself) to fall back on that remains faithful.  One that steps back from surety and steps into faith, which requires uncertainty - a faith which can endure the ups and downs that are inherent in the balance between the prophetic mantle and prophetic fallibility.  It is a faith that is both self-reliant and interdependent on prophets. It is a faith that heeds the words of the prophets but does not blindly follow or defend every word as if their faith/church depends upon it (it shouldn't).  It is a faith that can say "I think that was a mistake" without cracking our foundation.  It is a more enduring faith in that way.   I am concerned that people are misconstruing the acknowledgment of prophetic fallibility with "complaints".  It is not done in the spirit of complaining, but in the spirit of sustaining a more realistic concept of a human prophet.  This is the kind of prophet that I sustain, and love and heed - one that I can disagree with.  Nothing else will do. 

 

Ah, of course. The more spiritually mature New Wave humbly rides out to rescue the Restoration. Thank you for the enlightenment.

Bravo!👏👏 👏

Edited January 3, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

On 1/1/2023 at 10:44 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

Mercifully, the character of this board does not reflect the reality of my ward!

Nor mine. We have been so greatly blessed in our new home and ward. Salt of the earth Saints!

Edited January 3, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Ah, of course. The spiritually mature New Wave humbly rides out to rescue the Restoration. Thank you for the enlightenment.

Bravo!👏👏 👏

So I was right, you are talking about me and my faith experience as degrading to the board.  Mock me if you wish, but I will continue to spread hope over doubt as the unsustainable traditional narrative continues to crumble and disillusionment spreads through our ranks.  For those affected, they will either leave or they will emerge with a more enduring faith.   It is a spiritual movement that is happening, and it will continue - and yes it is a path that will save and strengthen faith for many, as it has done for me.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

So I was right, you are talking about me and my faith experience as degrading to the board.  Mock me if you wish, but I will continue to spread hope over doubt as the unsustainable traditional narrative continues to crumble and disillusionment spreads through our ranks.  For those affected, they will either leave or they will emerge with a more enduring faith.   It is a spiritual movement that is happening, and it will continue - and yes it is a path that will save and strengthen faith for many, as it has done for me.

Not so. I’m making a general observation on the decline of our board. Mock? Not at all.

This is quite concerning. You seem to have set yourself up as a moral mouthpiece of a New Wave movement that is going to bear the Kingdom out of its dark wilderness. Who is leading your quest? I would wish you luck with your errand, but it is something I cannot abide.

 

Edited January 3, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

On 1/1/2023 at 5:47 PM, Chum said:

So basically ward council then.

That doesn’t describe any ward council I’ve attended or been a part of. 
 

And I’ve been in or attended ward councils in five  wards in five separate locales. And two stake councils. 

Edited January 3, 2023 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

On 1/1/2023 at 4:50 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Thank you for these comments. I understand what you are saying. I’m getting old, too, and sometimes I feel that the Church has left me behind. That’s definitely the feeling about my Alma Mater, BYU. I don’t recognize it any more. Perhaps this is the way it’s supposed to be. Out with the old, in with the new.

And sadly, I’ve observed the decades-long evolution of this board from a formidable  defender of the faith against non-member critics to a constant barrage of complaints from our own brothers and sisters. 

I’m going side with Bernard here and say that I too have noticed a devolution of the board from being a platform for bold defense of the faith to being largely a bastion of carping and navel-gazing — so much so that it has seemed less and less of a good fit for me. 
 

It’s the dawn of a new year, maybe an opportune time for a change in how I spend some of my time.