My experience with this board

[Navidad]

As I said yesterday, I think the forum has changed in the five years I have been there, to a kinder more gentle place. I am unaware of the last time there was a genuine anti-Mormon here on the forum. For those whose mission it is to see the Church as persecuted, maligned, and needing to mount the ramparts, sound the alarm, shoulder the buckler,and draw the sword with some imagined dreaded enemy and finding none, that must be quite a loss!

Evangelicals are changing as are many mainline non-LDS Christians. The world is changing. Fundamentalists on both sides, maybe not so much, but they are not showing up here. And yes, heaven forbid, there are members of the Church who are discussing and dialoguing instead of demeaning and dividing. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? It all depends on your mission in life.

As a non-LDS Christian, my mission here is to learn. That must be terribly disappointing to those of you who thrive on the battlefield. I don't want to fight; I want to learn, worship, fellowship, and serve, perhaps even in an LDS ward without the need to fight. We have a tight group of wonderful Catholics who are here who aren't interesting in the fight. ¡Que lastima for those of you whose mission it is to fight! I don't know much about this forum pre-2017, but I know it has evolved (not devolved) into a great place to dialogue and discuss. Is that a problem? Have I missed something about the intent of this forum?

I have some fundy friends I could probably convince to come on here to inform the members of the Church that you are all going to hell! Would that make it more comfortable and in some way better for some of you? Then I would have to end up arguing with them, and everything would be upside-down again! Ha! Best wishes to all!

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I haven’t noticed so much in the last couple of years but over the last couple of decades there’s definitely been a change.

But I don’t consider the change to be a devolution, as some do. 

Exactly…there will always be change as posters come and go and interests change.  Looking at changes as a way to experience yet another part of the world rather than looking at it as a loss of the world you want to be in seems like it would make living with change a less stressful, more enjoyable experience.

[Calm]

Just now, Navidad said:

genuine anti-Mormon here on the forum.

 My memory is the occasional appearances don’t tend to last long as they have been pretty much trolls, just doing drivebys or  lashing out rather than even debating.

[Navidad]

22 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

This board seems to entirely focus on sociopolitical subjects related to the Church these days and rarely on doctrine or history.

I personally find it a devolution from where it once was.  I'm tired of discussing SSM, the latest happenings at BYU, or newspaper articles that should be in the news forum instead of the general one.

It's why I rarely post anymore.

I for one am happy to discuss doctrine and church history all day long. In fact, I just started a thread on the Third Convention and would welcome your response to it! Take care.

[Nemesis]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I for one am happy to discuss doctrine and church history all day long. In fact, I just started a thread on the Third Convention and would welcome your response to it! Take care.

Most of the menacing antimormons have taken over Mormon themed Reddit subs.  Most have been banned from here.  

[rodheadlee]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

Who are the doubters here that are still inside the Church?  Serious question.  I remember more ten years ago who were questioning in the past who still identified as members.  Those who doubt now talk about themselves as members of record perhaps, but not in other ways besides attending to support family.  I went and looked at the board’s member list to refresh my memory of past frequent and semi frequent posters and I am just not seeing it.  There seem to me to be fewer posters in the grey areas, the ‘undecided’ column so to speak than in the past.

I maybe crazy but I'm not stupid I'm not naming any names. 

[3DOP]

2 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

I maybe crazy but I'm not stupid I'm not naming any names. 

I agree rod. You are only crazy. To name names might be stupid, and crazy. 

I hope you and other faithful LDS like USU78, Storm Rider, and many others won't leave. 

I started a thread, maybe five or six years ago. I called it My New Mormonism, because I was perceiving what I thought were shifts and changes that were not necessarily compatible with Restoration thinking. If you are going to be rough on the Former-day Church (which I respect), you can't go soft on the Latter-day Church (which I disrespect). I came close to quitting after that fiasco. I got hammered pretty hard. 

The Former-day Church had changed for the worse, according to apostasy theory. I can respect that. What I cannot respect, indeed what I reject, is willy nilly change without attempt to demonstrate continuity with what came before. You had good apologists like McConkie and later Peterson, who I felt did a good job. I felt stalemated by them. I retreated to a defensive position before those guys. Prove my church apostate. I will explain why you have misunderstood the Former-day Church in declaring her apostate. This new crowd that won't defend their own fathers? No. They don't stalemate me; they bore me. I truly don't know why you guys have to hate on Bruce McConkie, and treat Dan Peterson, one of the most beautiful (and clever) souls I have known on the internet, as a pariah. If were to go LDS, it would be with them.

PS: Naw, I know why Dan is despised...it isn't his beauty...it is his cleverness.

PPS: I haven't established as well as I might like, that there is in general a movement away from what I would call a McConkie/Peterson model for apostasy. I hope I am wrong. It would be hard for me to dig up old threads that would support what I am saying. 

My problem, is that the progressive LDS, don't seem to take any concern about conserving apostasy theory. Likewise, progressive Catholics don't have the slightest concern in defending ancient Catholicism. The "progressives" in both camps fail to appreciate the need for defending their fathers. Apostasy or not is everything to me.

 

Edited January 4, 2023 by 3DOP

[pogi]

8 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I agree rod. You are only crazy. To name names might be stupid, and crazy. 

I hope you and other faithful LDS like USU78, Storm Rider, and many others won't leave. 

I started a thread, maybe five or six years ago. I called it My New Mormonism, because I was perceiving what I thought were shifts and changes that were not necessarily compatible with Restoration thinking. If you are going to be rough on the Former-day Church (which I respect), you can't go soft on the Latter-day Church (which I disrespect). I came close to quitting after that fiasco. I got hammered pretty hard. 

The Former-day Church had changed for the worse, according to apostasy theory. I can respect that. What I cannot respect, indeed what I reject, is willy nilly change without attempt to demonstrate continuity with what came before. You had good apologists like McConkie and later Peterson, who I felt did a good job. I felt stalemated by them. I retreated to a defensive position before those guys. Prove my church apostate. I will explain why you have misunderstood the Former-day Church in declaring her apostate. This new crowd that won't defend their own fathers? No. They don't stalemate me; they bore me. I truly don't know why you guys have to hate on Bruce McConkie, and treat Dan Peterson, one of the most beautiful (and clever) souls I have known on the internet, as a pariah. If were to go LDS, it would be with them.

PS: Naw, I know why Dan is despised...it isn't his beauty...it is his cleverness.

PPS: I haven't established as well as I might like, that there is in general a movement away from what I would call a McConkie/Peterson model for apostasy. I hope I am wrong. It would be hard for me to dig up old threads that would support what I am saying. 

My problem, is that the progressive LDS, don't seem to take any concern about conserving apostasy theory. Likewise, progressive Catholics don't have the slightest concern in defending ancient Catholicism. The "progressives" in both camps fail to appreciate the need for defending their fathers. Apostasy or not is everything to me.

Hi 3DOP,  was there a poster here who used the name “Bruce McConkie” (an apostle who died in’85)?  Or, are you referencing his writings?  It is interesting to hear so much respect for him coming from a Catholic, as he authored and propagated the “doctrine” that the Catholic Church is the “whore of all the earth” and the “church of the devil”?  While I respect him in many ways, several of his teachings have been thoroughly disavowed by progressives and conservatives alike - including his position on the Catholic Church.

I am unaware of any Latter-day Saint posters here who are not firm believers in the great apostasy, and “apostasy theory”.   

“Continuity” with the ancient Church is important to some degree, but the fundamental purpose of the restoration was never to make a cookie cutter re-make if the primitive church, but has always had a more progressive, forward leaning bent with ongoing revelation and an open canon.  Our dispensation of the “fullness of times” is different from any previous dispensation, as all previous dispensations have differed from and built upon preceding ones.  We are more than a purist restoration movement, with the mission of remaking the primitive church and teaching exactly as it was, no more and no less, but we are Latter-day movement accepting “all that God will reveal” (not just what he has revealed) in preparation for the second coming.  

In regards to “defending our fathers”, I agree with defending their mantle, their calling, their mission, but I do not believe in defending every word that came out of their mouths, or defend them as infallible.  That position, to me, would not be in “continuity” with the ancient church where apostles made mistakes and were even rebuked by the Lord.  Peter himself denying the Lord thrice. Go back even further to prophets like Samuel, and you will see that while their mantle is worth defending, not everything they did and said is worth defending.  They made mistakes.  Joseph Smith himself published several harsh rebukes he received from the Lord.  So to attempt to defend our fathers I every word and deed would be a misguided effort which the Lord Himself would never attempt or support. 

We are to become prophets ourselves.  That is the ultimate goal.  Not to follow blindly, but to give heed to church leaders and learn the spirit/gift of discernment for ourselves, ultimately giving obedience to the Lord only.

The point of the restoration is not to become stagnant in fundamentalist ideology, but to restore a foundation of priesthood authority, organization, and structure from which we can progress in light and knowledge and general progression above and beyond what any previous dispensation could ever imagine until the “purposes of God shall be accomplished and the great Jehovah shall say the work is done.”   That is a progressive mission which is not restricted by fundamentalist notions.

Edited January 4, 2023 by pogi

[Tacenda]

12 hours ago, Navidad said:

I for one am happy to discuss doctrine and church history all day long. In fact, I just started a thread on the Third Convention and would welcome your response to it! Take care.

Going to listen to an audible of a book I believe I read years ago, that I'm sure you'll know the people in it called, "My Favorite Wife - Escape from Polygamy".

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Going to listen to an audible of a book I believe I read years ago, that I'm sure you'll know the people in it called, "My Favorite Wife - Escape from Polygamy".

Yeh, a small (that turned wildly popular) cult (pun intended) industry broke out thirty or more years ago when former wives began writing books about their times with the LeBarons. A number of them apparently became born again Christians in later years. Susan was born into an LDS home and at a rather young age was married to Verlan LeBaron. His other wives do testify that Susan was his "favorite." There were jealousies all around. Verlan wrote a biography of the LeBarons in Spanish. He died in a car wreck, I believe in Mexico City. Folks have often been suspicious of the wreck given the culture of the family. Enjoy listening!

[Islander]

On 1/2/2023 at 10:16 PM, JLHPROF said:

This board seems to entirely focus on sociopolitical subjects related to the Church these days and rarely on doctrine or history.

I personally find it a devolution from where it once was.  I'm tired of discussing SSM, the latest happenings at BYU, or newspaper articles that should be in the news forum instead of the general one.

It's why I rarely post anymore.

Well, that is to be expected when the lead "posters" of the forum are located inside the "mormon belt". I am interested in doctrinal or historical issues. I care very little for the rest and usually stay away from it.  I used to engage more in the past. Now I check once a week or less. There is little in the forum that interests me these days.

[Tacenda]

I've been a little less active. It's hopefully going to pick up. I wish several new members would stick around. I'm dead wood, and really wish I was more interesting and knowledgeable. I will always love this board though. It truly kept/keeps me in the church. 

[3DOP]

On 1/4/2023 at 7:33 AM, pogi said:

Hi 3DOP,  was there a poster here who used the name “Bruce McConkie” (an apostle who died in’85)?  Or, are you referencing his writings?  It is interesting to hear so much respect for him coming from a Catholic, as he authored and propagated the “doctrine” that the Catholic Church is the “whore of all the earth” and the “church of the devil”?  While I respect him in many ways, several of his teachings have been thoroughly disavowed by progressives and conservatives alike - including his position on the Catholic Church.

I am unaware of any Latter-day Saint posters here who are not firm believers in the great apostasy, and “apostasy theory”.   

“Continuity” with the ancient Church is important to some degree, but the fundamental purpose of the restoration was never to make a cookie cutter re-make if the primitive church, but has always had a more progressive, forward leaning bent with ongoing revelation and an open canon.  Our dispensation of the “fullness of times” is different from any previous dispensation, as all previous dispensations have differed from and built upon preceding ones.  We are more than a purist restoration movement, with the mission of remaking the primitive church and teaching exactly as it was, no more and no less, but we are Latter-day movement accepting “all that God will reveal” (not just what he has revealed) in preparation for the second coming.  

In regards to “defending our fathers”, I agree with defending their mantle, their calling, their mission, but I do not believe in defending every word that came out of their mouths, or defend them as infallible.  That position, to me, would not be in “continuity” with the ancient church where apostles made mistakes and were even rebuked by the Lord.  Peter himself denying the Lord thrice. Go back even further to prophets like Samuel, and you will see that while their mantle is worth defending, not everything they did and said is worth defending.  They made mistakes.  Joseph Smith himself published several harsh rebukes he received from the Lord.  So to attempt to defend our fathers I every word and deed would be a misguided effort which the Lord Himself would never attempt or support. 

We are to become prophets ourselves.  That is the ultimate goal.  Not to follow blindly, but to give heed to church leaders and learn the spirit/gift of discernment for ourselves, ultimately giving obedience to the Lord only.

The point of the restoration is not to become stagnant in fundamentalist ideology, but to restore a foundation of priesthood authority, organization, and structure from which we can progress in light and knowledge and general progression above and beyond what any previous dispensation could ever imagine until the “purposes of God shall be accomplished and the great Jehovah shall say the work is done.”   That is a progressive mission which is not restricted by fundamentalist notions.

Pogi, thanks for your patience. I have not forgotten this post, and your very reasonable question.

[Saint Bonaventure]

I find this board delightful and appreciate the patience that has been extended to me. So many here lead with curiosity instead of criticism, empathy instead of conflict.

Pioneers and pilgrims share many of the same day-to-day struggles; sometimes they even spare a crust of bread for one another.

[3DOP]

On 1/4/2023 at 7:33 AM, pogi said:

Hi 3DOP,  was there a poster here who used the name “Bruce McConkie” (an apostle who died in’85)?  Or, are you referencing his writings?  It is interesting to hear so much respect for him coming from a Catholic, as he authored and propagated the “doctrine” that the Catholic Church is the “whore of all the earth” and the “church of the devil”?  While I respect him in many ways, several of his teachings have been thoroughly disavowed by progressives and conservatives alike - including his position on the Catholic Church.

I am unaware of any Latter-day Saint posters here who are not firm believers in the great apostasy, and “apostasy theory”.   

“Continuity” with the ancient Church is important to some degree, but the fundamental purpose of the restoration was never to make a cookie cutter re-make if the primitive church, but has always had a more progressive, forward leaning bent with ongoing revelation and an open canon.  Our dispensation of the “fullness of times” is different from any previous dispensation, as all previous dispensations have differed from and built upon preceding ones.  We are more than a purist restoration movement, with the mission of remaking the primitive church and teaching exactly as it was, no more and no less, but we are Latter-day movement accepting “all that God will reveal” (not just what he has revealed) in preparation for the second coming.  

In regards to “defending our fathers”, I agree with defending their mantle, their calling, their mission, but I do not believe in defending every word that came out of their mouths, or defend them as infallible.  That position, to me, would not be in “continuity” with the ancient church where apostles made mistakes and were even rebuked by the Lord.  Peter himself denying the Lord thrice. Go back even further to prophets like Samuel, and you will see that while their mantle is worth defending, not everything they did and said is worth defending.  They made mistakes.  Joseph Smith himself published several harsh rebukes he received from the Lord.  So to attempt to defend our fathers I every word and deed would be a misguided effort which the Lord Himself would never attempt or support. 

We are to become prophets ourselves.  That is the ultimate goal.  Not to follow blindly, but to give heed to church leaders and learn the spirit/gift of discernment for ourselves, ultimately giving obedience to the Lord only.

The point of the restoration is not to become stagnant in fundamentalist ideology, but to restore a foundation of priesthood authority, organization, and structure from which we can progress in light and knowledge and general progression above and beyond what any previous dispensation could ever imagine until the “purposes of God shall be accomplished and the great Jehovah shall say the work is done.”   That is a progressive mission which is not restricted by fundamentalist notions.

Pogi. Hi.

In the late 80's I was in a period of religious transition, moving away from what I had begun to believe in my early twenties about the Bible and churches. Even while a minister, I was transitioning toward a less closed view of Christianity. I merged my Baptist Church with another, to form the Berean Bible Church. It was naive to be sure. But we had this idea that there shouldn't be diversity and even the competition for members that appeared to exist on the Evangelical scene. From Scripture, it didn't seem like there should be multiple churches that couldn't fellowship together or embrace the same disciplines in the same region. We should always be striving for spiritual fellowship with those who testify to their belief in Jesus Christ. We reached out to other Christian communities in our area to suggest more merging of churches. If I recall correctly, we only got positive responses from one Lutheran and one Pentecostal church. 

At the same time, someone who has become my best friend began attending our church. The novel thing was that while he suggested that I consider the Catholic faith, he also suggested the CoJCoLDS. He introduced me to the name and teaching, of Bruce McConkie, and shared some of his ideas with me, including his view of the Catholic Church, which you Pogi, have accurately described. Eventually, and especially after frustration with "uniting the Protestants", I came to the place where I was looking for a church that could do what Berean Bible Church could not do. There had to be a way to best promote the unity which we see Christ pray for in John 17. So even before I left Berean Bible in early 1992, so as to go forward in this search, I encountered claims that were unique in comparison to what I was familiar with as a Baptist. Both Salt Lake Mormonism and the Roman Catholic Church gave plausible claims to being the one true visible church on earth. It wasn't until 1995 that we decided for Rome. In the meantime, I retained great respect for the ecclesiology of LDS thought, including Bruce McConkie's position about the Catholic Church. To this day, it seems eminently reasonable to me that any false church that makes the claims that Rome does, might be of Satan. Rome claims either lying wonders performed by the devil, or it is the one true church. Frankly, I have not spoke about this much here, but I have the same thoughts about LDS origins, which I think have elements about it that if they are not supernatural, in the strict sense, were beyond the natural capacity of young Joseph Smith.

Maybe you can see why I might say that it is a compliment then, to be considered as a candidate for a church of the devil. I must admit now, that I have never read any of Bruce McConkie's books. But I always carried a favorable notion of his LDS orthodoxy from my friend. In the early years of my experience of LDS on the internet, it seemed like his name and authority as an apostle were cited favorably by those LDS I interacted with. But I think I perceived a change, maybe only ten or twelve years ago, where even LDS dismissed McConkie's interpretation of the Catholic Church as the Whore of Babylon, as well as perhaps some of his other teachings. Among other problems, such as the outrageous idolatry of wafer worshipping orthodox Catholics, I could probably only be LDS thinking like McConkie about the Catholics. I am completely untroubled about the rationale behind why he took the position he did towards us.

Dan Peterson was known to me from ZLMB and here at MDDB in the early years. I know many didn't, but I loved his quick and sometimes abrasive wit towards LDS critics. But more, I appreciated his patient and amiable assessments of my positions as a Catholic already in the 2000's. His book, Offenders For a Word, has had a lasting influence on my thinking. I cannot call the Church of the Latter-day Saints the true church, but it is as "Christian" as any not true church, (if you will allow me to beg the question from my own perspective). Indeed, I am here because, in a very important sense, I find LDS claims to be the most Christian of any church except my own Roman Catholic Church. 

So shoot, I want spiritual fellowship with you all, along with those Pentecostals and Lutherans we contacted. That Catholic/Universal idea of Christ's Church which began at Berean Bible led me eventually to Rome, and it continues to direct my actions and words here. I am unsatisfied with "unity" where we don't sing the same hymns and kneel, sit, or stand worshiping the same way. We can't have the truly profound spiritual fellowship, the unity for which Christ infallibly prayed for in Jn. 17, unless we believe the same things, and accept the same disciplinary authorities on earth.               

Edited January 9, 2023 by 3DOP

[pogi]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

Pogi. Hi.

In the late 80's I was in a period of religious transition, moving away from what I had begun to believe in my early twenties about the Bible and churches. Even while a minister, I was transitioning toward a less closed view of Christianity. I merged my Baptist Church with another, to form the Berean Bible Church. It was naive to be sure. But we had this idea that there shouldn't be diversity and even the competition for members that appeared to exist on the Evangelical scene. From Scripture, it didn't seem like there should be multiple churches that couldn't fellowship together or embrace the same disciplines in the same region. We should always be striving for spiritual fellowship with those who testify to their belief in Jesus Christ. We reached out to other Christian communities in our area to suggest more merging of churches. If I recall correctly, we only got positive responses from one Lutheran and one Pentecostal church. 

At the same time, someone who has become my best friend began attending our church. The novel thing was that while he suggested that I consider the Catholic faith, he also suggested the CoJCoLDS. He introduced me to the name and teaching, of Bruce McConkie, and shared some of his ideas with me, including his view of the Catholic Church, which you Pogi, have accurately described. Eventually, and especially after frustration with "uniting the Protestants", I came to the place where I was looking for a church that could do what Berean Bible Church could not do. There had to be a way to best promote the unity which we see Christ pray for in John 17. So even before I left Berean Bible in early 1992, so as to go forward in this search, I encountered claims that were unique in comparison to what I was familiar with as a Baptist. Both Salt Lake Mormonism and the Roman Catholic Church gave plausible claims to being the one true visible church on earth. It wasn't until 1995 that we decided for Rome. In the meantime, I retained great respect for the ecclesiology of LDS thought, including Bruce McConkie's position about the Catholic Church. To this day, it seems eminently reasonable to me that any false church that makes the claims that Rome does, might be of Satan. Rome claims either lying wonders performed by the devil, or it is the one true church. Frankly, I have not spoke about this much here, but I have the same thoughts about LDS origins, which I think have elements about it that if they are not supernatural, in the strict sense, were beyond the natural capacity of young Joseph Smith.

Maybe you can see why I might say that it is a compliment then, to be considered as a candidate for a church of the devil. I must admit now, that I have never read any of Bruce McConkie's books. But I always carried a favorable notion of his LDS orthodoxy from my friend. In the early years of my experience of LDS on the internet, it seemed like his name and authority as an apostle were cited favorably by those LDS I interacted with. But I think I perceived a change, maybe only ten or twelve years ago, where even LDS dismissed McConkie's interpretation of the Catholic Church as the Whore of Babylon, as well as perhaps some of his other teachings. Among other problems, such as the outrageous idolatry of wafer worshipping orthodox Catholics, I could probably only be LDS thinking like McConkie about the Catholics. I am completely untroubled about the rationale behind why he took the position he did towards us.

Dan Peterson was known to me from ZLMB and here at MDDB in the early years. I know many didn't, but I loved his quick and sometimes abrasive wit towards LDS critics. But more, I appreciated his patient and amiable assessments of my positions as a Catholic already in the 2000's. His book, Offenders For a Word, has had a lasting influence on my thinking. I cannot call the Church of the Latter-day Saints the true church, but it is as "Christian" as any not true church, (if you will allow me to beg the question from my own perspective). Indeed, I am here because, in a very important sense, I find LDS claims to be the most Christian of any church except my own Roman Catholic Church. 

So shoot, I want spiritual fellowship with you all, along with those Pentecostals and Lutherans we contacted. That Catholic/Universal idea of Christ's Church which began at Berean Bible led me eventually to Rome, and it continues to direct my actions and words here. I am unsatisfied with "unity" where we don't sing the same hymns and kneel, sit, or stand worshiping the same way. We can't have the truly profound spiritual fellowship, the unity for which Christ infallibly prayed for in Jn. 17, unless we believe the same things, and accept the same disciplinary authorities on earth.               

You are more Mormon in a lot of ways than a lot of Mormons I know.   Thanks for your thoughtful reply.  I'll try to post a response soon. 

[pogi]

14 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Pogi. Hi.

In the late 80's I was in a period of religious transition, moving away from what I had begun to believe in my early twenties about the Bible and churches. Even while a minister, I was transitioning toward a less closed view of Christianity. I merged my Baptist Church with another, to form the Berean Bible Church. It was naive to be sure. But we had this idea that there shouldn't be diversity and even the competition for members that appeared to exist on the Evangelical scene. From Scripture, it didn't seem like there should be multiple churches that couldn't fellowship together or embrace the same disciplines in the same region. We should always be striving for spiritual fellowship with those who testify to their belief in Jesus Christ. We reached out to other Christian communities in our area to suggest more merging of churches. If I recall correctly, we only got positive responses from one Lutheran and one Pentecostal church. 

At the same time, someone who has become my best friend began attending our church. The novel thing was that while he suggested that I consider the Catholic faith, he also suggested the CoJCoLDS. He introduced me to the name and teaching, of Bruce McConkie, and shared some of his ideas with me, including his view of the Catholic Church, which you Pogi, have accurately described. Eventually, and especially after frustration with "uniting the Protestants", I came to the place where I was looking for a church that could do what Berean Bible Church could not do. There had to be a way to best promote the unity which we see Christ pray for in John 17. So even before I left Berean Bible in early 1992, so as to go forward in this search, I encountered claims that were unique in comparison to what I was familiar with as a Baptist. Both Salt Lake Mormonism and the Roman Catholic Church gave plausible claims to being the one true visible church on earth. It wasn't until 1995 that we decided for Rome. In the meantime, I retained great respect for the ecclesiology of LDS thought, including Bruce McConkie's position about the Catholic Church. To this day, it seems eminently reasonable to me that any false church that makes the claims that Rome does, might be of Satan. Rome claims either lying wonders performed by the devil, or it is the one true church. Frankly, I have not spoke about this much here, but I have the same thoughts about LDS origins, which I think have elements about it that if they are not supernatural, in the strict sense, were beyond the natural capacity of young Joseph Smith.

Maybe you can see why I might say that it is a compliment then, to be considered as a candidate for a church of the devil. I must admit now, that I have never read any of Bruce McConkie's books. But I always carried a favorable notion of his LDS orthodoxy from my friend. In the early years of my experience of LDS on the internet, it seemed like his name and authority as an apostle were cited favorably by those LDS I interacted with. But I think I perceived a change, maybe only ten or twelve years ago, where even LDS dismissed McConkie's interpretation of the Catholic Church as the Whore of Babylon, as well as perhaps some of his other teachings. Among other problems, such as the outrageous idolatry of wafer worshipping orthodox Catholics, I could probably only be LDS thinking like McConkie about the Catholics. I am completely untroubled about the rationale behind why he took the position he did towards us.

Dan Peterson was known to me from ZLMB and here at MDDB in the early years. I know many didn't, but I loved his quick and sometimes abrasive wit towards LDS critics. But more, I appreciated his patient and amiable assessments of my positions as a Catholic already in the 2000's. His book, Offenders For a Word, has had a lasting influence on my thinking. I cannot call the Church of the Latter-day Saints the true church, but it is as "Christian" as any not true church, (if you will allow me to beg the question from my own perspective). Indeed, I am here because, in a very important sense, I find LDS claims to be the most Christian of any church except my own Roman Catholic Church. 

So shoot, I want spiritual fellowship with you all, along with those Pentecostals and Lutherans we contacted. That Catholic/Universal idea of Christ's Church which began at Berean Bible led me eventually to Rome, and it continues to direct my actions and words here. I am unsatisfied with "unity" where we don't sing the same hymns and kneel, sit, or stand worshiping the same way. We can't have the truly profound spiritual fellowship, the unity for which Christ infallibly prayed for in Jn. 17, unless we believe the same things, and accept the same disciplinary authorities on earth.               

I think I am going to divide your response into a couple different subjects.  The first has to do with Elder McConkie's interpretation of a passage in the Book of Mormon which states that there are only two churches - the church of the lamb of God, and the church of the devil.  The second is the idea of unity or the oneness among the believers in Christ spoken of in John 17.   We'll see how far I get, I may just address the first part tonight.

Your views are very reminiscent of several church leaders who have stated similar sentiment.  The following is from President Hinckley:

Quote

Well, it’s either true or false. If it’s false, we’re engaged in a great fraud. If it’s true, it’s the most important thing in the world. Now, that’s the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. 

This idea matches very well with good and evil dichotomies often portrayed in scripture.  In the Book of Mormon we have the dichotomies of the the Church of the Lamb and the Church of the devil.   This all matches up to the teachings in the Bible and other sacred texts:

Quote

“Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I set before you the way of life, and the way of death” (Jeremiah 21:8). Psalm 1 declares, “For the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish” (Psalm 1:6).  

A dramatic example of the doctrine is found in Deuteronomy, where Moses is recorded as saying, "I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil," which the people must choose between: "I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live." (Deuteronomy 30:15, 19).

This teaching is also evident in the Proverbs and the wisdom literature.5 Significantly, several scholars have suggested that Lehi and Nephi were strongly influenced by the wisdom tradition of their day, and 1 Nephi 8, 11-14 bear many marks of the wisdom literature.6

The doctrine of the Two Ways was also strongly present in the Dead Sea Scrolls. For instance, the Community Rule scroll divides people into only two groups: “the Children of Light” and “the Children of Darkness.”7It can also be seen in several early Christian texts from the first through fifth centuries.8

One of the clearest expressions of the concept is found in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, where he taught, “for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat” while “strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it” (Matthew 7:13–14).

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/are-there-really-only-two-churches

This all points to the law of opposition as taught in the Book of Mormon:

Quote

“It must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, … righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad” (2 Nephi 2:11; see also verse 15)

Basically it is all captured in the symbol of yin and yang. 

This is all very powerful imagery, and if not properly understood can lead to devastating consequences.  It can lead to an all or nothing mentality which is the foundation of radical fundamentalism where one is obligated to either defend everything, or else accept the fate that it is all a fraud and evil.   Those who are honest with themselves find imperfections and fault in some of what the church and its leaders have done, under the influence of this imagery of all black or all white concepts, they are left to conclude that it must all be a fraud.  This black and white imagery can push people to polar extremes when improperly understood and without proper context. 

Bruce R. Mckonkie himself recognized the core progressive nature of the church and that leaders can make mistakes AND the church can still be true.  He stated in light of the new revelation on blacks and the priesthood:

Quote

Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more.” (McConkie, Bruce R. “All Are Alike Unto God“) 

It is easy to get hung up and have issue with what is seemingly trying to brush mistakes under the blanket and just forget about it, or pretend like it didn't happen.  But I see this statement in a different light.  To me, he is acknowledging mistakes.  He is acknowledging old teachings of church leaders and prophets are "contrary" to new light and knowledge.  He acknowledged that their old teachings were taught in "darkness", or were un-illuminated, and thus based on the precepts/interpretations  of man rather than precepts of light and revelation.  His message is a powerful one.  This is a progressive church.  Don't expect perfection.  We make mistakes and that is ok and should be expected.  We learn line upon line, precept upon precept.  Onwards and upwards.   This acknowledgment shatters this idea of all or nothing. 

President Uchtdorf stated it like this:

Quote

“Sometimes we think of the Restoration of the gospel as something that is complete, already behind us—Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, he received priesthood keys, the Church was organized. In reality, the Restoration is an ongoing process; we are living in it right now” (Uchtdorf, Dieter. “Are You Sleeping Through the Restoration?”).

Now that we understand that even the "only true and living church" with which the Lord is well pleased is not perfect.  It is not all black, and it is not all white.  Its members are not all black or all white.  No single individual on earth is all black or all white.  The church's  teachings are not all black or all white.  Its leaders are not all black or all white as the polar fundamentalists and apostate enemies of the church would have us conclude.  How can that be if we have all of these scriptural teachings of this great dichotomy of opposites?  As the Christ himself states - "there is none good but God".  He is the polar white, along with his now glorified son the "Lamb of God".  The devil being the polar black.   These two churches represent the way of the Lamb of God and the way of the devil, and do not reflect any earthly institution or organized church.

BH Roberts stated:

Quote

"The church of the devil’ here alluded to, I understand to mean not any particular church among men, or any one sect of religion, but something larger than that — something that includes within its boundaries all evil wherever it may be found; as well in schools of philosophy as Christian sects; as well in systems of ethics as in systems of religion. (Roberts, Brigham H. Defense of the Faith and The Saints. Pg 30)

In that regard, the church of the devil is not limited to any institution, but can be found even within the LDS church.  

Quote

Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God.” (2 Nephi 10:16)

In other words, both member and non-member. 

We see the complete opposite (law of opposition) of this teaching in the Bible where Christs disciples saw other casting out devils and wanted to stop them because they were "not with us", but Jesus taught them:

Quote

for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward. (Mark 9)

As we can see, the church of the devil is everywhere.  So is the church of the Lamb.

That is why we are counseled to go out and find truth wherever we can find it, because the church of the Lamb, light, revelation, truth, goodness, the WAY is BIGGER than this church.  What is unique to us is the authority to bind it all together in one great whole.  It is our unique duty to circumscribe all of this into the great oneness, under one name, and by one authority.  Under the great plan of happiness/salvation the work will continue beyond the grave.  It is not limited to the bounds of mortality.  This more grand and eternal perspective of the work allows us to see others as TRUE brothers and sisters in Christ and the church of the lamb of God, and not dismiss them as disciples of Satans church because they are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  All who hear and follow his voice are members of the church of the Lamb and will all eventually be gathered into his kingdom through missionary work, but that work is not limited to this life. 

Does black and white exist?  Yes.  It exists in all of us and every institution.  These images were not intended to make polaristic radicals out of us who defend everything the church says or reject it as an enemy, but to help us identify the internal workings of our hearts and decipher his voice from the voice of darkness.  The question is (as the old parable of the wolves goes) which one will you feed? 

A lot of these ideas were borrowed from here (it is worth a read):

https://rationalfaiths.com/save-two-churches/

Edited January 9, 2023 by pogi

[Calm]

4 hours ago, 3DOP said:

it is as "Christian" as any not true church,

How does that correlate though with the possibility that Satan or another nongodly supernatural force had some influence on the LDS church’s beginnings?

I have always felt the same way about the Catholic faith and that is why I have always disagreed with Elder McConkie on his comments about the Catholic Church being the whore of Babylon plus it doesn’t match imo the description of the Great and Abominable church of the Book of Mormon as close as some would claim, even if I have respected him in other ways (there is also some other stuff I highly disagree with, but I don’t think there is a person alive or who has ever been that I know quite a bit about that I don’t disagree in some way with. Probably why I never could think of someone as my role model. 

Edited January 9, 2023 by Calm

[manol]

18 hours ago, 3DOP said:

In the late 80's I was in a period of religious transition, moving away from what I had begun to believe in my early twenties about the Bible and churches. Even while a minister, I was transitioning toward a less closed view of Christianity. I merged my Baptist Church with another, to form the Berean Bible Church. It was naive to be sure. But we had this idea that there shouldn't be diversity and even the competition for members that appeared to exist on the Evangelical scene. From Scripture, it didn't seem like there should be multiple churches that couldn't fellowship together or embrace the same disciplines in the same region. We should always be striving for spiritual fellowship with those who testify to their belief in Jesus Christ. We reached out to other Christian communities in our area to suggest more merging of churches.

Wow.  Kudos to you for your intentions and effort!   And, thank you VERY MUCH for sharing your background.  Again, wow.  You really walked your walk! 

18 hours ago, 3DOP said:

At the same time, someone who has become my best friend began attending our church. The novel thing was that while he suggested that I consider the Catholic faith, he also suggested the CoJCoLDS... It wasn't until 1995 that we decided for Rome... To this day, it seems eminently reasonable to me that any false church that makes the claims that Rome does, might be of Satan. Rome claims either lying wonders performed by the devil, or it is the one true church.  Frankly, I have not spoke about this much here, but I have the same thoughts about LDS origins, which I think have elements about it that if they are not supernatural, in the strict sense, were beyond the natural capacity of young Joseph Smith.

Regarding the part I bolded - maybe an "all or nothing" paradigm (apparently shared by Bruce R. McConkie and the Roman Catholic Church) is not the way God sees us.  Consider this:  Evidently you see quite a bit of genuine good in both the Roman Catholic Church and the LDS Church, despite their mutually-exclusive doctrines.  Maybe those mutually-exclusive doctrines are not what matters most to God.  Maybe God knows that not everyone is going to agree about matters of doctrine and so he teaches what matters most through the intermediary of MANY different doctrinal systems.   What is the common ground the Roman Catholic Church and LDS Church and Berean Bible Church truly share?  Perhaps that's where we'll find what matters most to God. 

18 hours ago, 3DOP said:

So shoot, I want spiritual fellowship with you all, along with those Pentecostals and Lutherans we contacted. That Catholic/Universal idea of Christ's Church which began at Berean Bible led me eventually to Rome, and it continues to direct my actions and words here.

Amen, brother!

18 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I am unsatisfied with "unity" where we don't sing the same hymns and kneel, sit, or stand worshiping the same way. We can't have the truly profound spiritual fellowship, the unity for which Christ infallibly prayed for in Jn. 17, unless we believe the same things, and accept the same disciplinary authorities on earth.               

I think I understand what you're saying, which seems to be along the lines of desiring unity "on earth as it is in heaven".   Perhaps the underlying reality is "unity", even when the outward appearance is "separation".  To put it another way, perhaps the branches do not realize they are of the same Vine. 

 

[3DOP]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

How does that correlate though with the possibility that Satan or another nongodly supernatural force had some influence on the LDS church’s beginnings?

I have always felt the same way about the Catholic faith and that is why I have always disagreed with Elder McConkie on his comments about the Catholic Church being the whore of Babylon plus it doesn’t match imo the description of the Great and Abominable church of the Book of Mormon as close as some would claim, even if I have respected him in other ways (there is also some other stuff I highly disagree with, but I don’t think there is a person alive or who has ever been that I know quite a bit about that I don’t disagree in some way with. Probably why I never could think of someone as my role model. 

Hi calm. Good opening question. I look forward to making a more complete answer. But for starters, it would probably begin with the book by Dr. Peterson, Offenders For a Word. LDS do not come out of nothing. You believe in the biblical Christ. With that beginning alone, there is no other religion that it is reasonable to propose for LDS as having its foundations in as Christianity. 

---------------

I wish I had more time. Thanks for all of the replies.

 

[3DOP]

On 1/8/2023 at 11:04 PM, pogi said:

I think I am going to divide your response into a couple different subjects.  The first has to do with Elder McConkie's interpretation of a passage in the Book of Mormon which states that there are only two churches - the church of the lamb of God, and the church of the devil.  The second is the idea of unity or the oneness among the believers in Christ spoken of in John 17.   We'll see how far I get, I may just address the first part tonight.

Your views are very reminiscent of several church leaders who have stated similar sentiment.  The following is from President Hinckley:

This idea matches very well with good and evil dichotomies often portrayed in scripture.  In the Book of Mormon we have the dichotomies of the the Church of the Lamb and the Church of the devil.   This all matches up to the teachings in the Bible and other sacred texts:

This all points to the law of opposition as taught in the Book of Mormon:

Basically it is all captured in the symbol of yin and yang. 

This is all very powerful imagery, and if not properly understood can lead to devastating consequences.  It can lead to an all or nothing mentality which is the foundation of radical fundamentalism where one is obligated to either defend everything, or else accept the fate that it is all a fraud and evil.   Those who are honest with themselves find imperfections and fault in some of what the church and its leaders have done, under the influence of this imagery of all black or all white concepts, they are left to conclude that it must all be a fraud.  This black and white imagery can push people to polar extremes when improperly understood and without proper context. 

Bruce R. Mckonkie himself recognized the core progressive nature of the church and that leaders can make mistakes AND the church can still be true.  He stated in light of the new revelation on blacks and the priesthood:

It is easy to get hung up and have issue with what is seemingly trying to brush mistakes under the blanket and just forget about it, or pretend like it didn't happen.  But I see this statement in a different light.  To me, he is acknowledging mistakes.  He is acknowledging old teachings of church leaders and prophets are "contrary" to new light and knowledge.  He acknowledged that their old teachings were taught in "darkness", or were un-illuminated, and thus based on the precepts/interpretations  of man rather than precepts of light and revelation.  His message is a powerful one.  This is a progressive church.  Don't expect perfection.  We make mistakes and that is ok and should be expected.  We learn line upon line, precept upon precept.  Onwards and upwards.   This acknowledgment shatters this idea of all or nothing. 

President Uchtdorf stated it like this:

Now that we understand that even the "only true and living church" with which the Lord is well pleased is not perfect.  It is not all black, and it is not all white.  Its members are not all black or all white.  No single individual on earth is all black or all white.  The church's  teachings are not all black or all white.  Its leaders are not all black or all white as the polar fundamentalists and apostate enemies of the church would have us conclude.  How can that be if we have all of these scriptural teachings of this great dichotomy of opposites?  As the Christ himself states - "there is none good but God".  He is the polar white, along with his now glorified son the "Lamb of God".  The devil being the polar black.   These two churches represent the way of the Lamb of God and the way of the devil, and do not reflect any earthly institution or organized church.

BH Roberts stated:

In that regard, the church of the devil is not limited to any institution, but can be found even within the LDS church.  

In other words, both member and non-member. 

We see the complete opposite (law of opposition) of this teaching in the Bible where Christs disciples saw other casting out devils and wanted to stop them because they were "not with us", but Jesus taught them:

As we can see, the church of the devil is everywhere.  So is the church of the Lamb.

That is why we are counseled to go out and find truth wherever we can find it, because the church of the Lamb, light, revelation, truth, goodness, the WAY is BIGGER than this church.  What is unique to us is the authority to bind it all together in one great whole.  It is our unique duty to circumscribe all of this into the great oneness, under one name, and by one authority.  Under the great plan of happiness/salvation the work will continue beyond the grave.  It is not limited to the bounds of mortality.  This more grand and eternal perspective of the work allows us to see others as TRUE brothers and sisters in Christ and the church of the lamb of God, and not dismiss them as disciples of Satans church because they are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  All who hear and follow his voice are members of the church of the Lamb and will all eventually be gathered into his kingdom through missionary work, but that work is not limited to this life. 

Does black and white exist?  Yes.  It exists in all of us and every institution.  These images were not intended to make polaristic radicals out of us who defend everything the church says or reject it as an enemy, but to help us identify the internal workings of our hearts and decipher his voice from the voice of darkness.  The question is (as the old parable of the wolves goes) which one will you feed? 

A lot of these ideas were borrowed from here (it is worth a read):

https://rationalfaiths.com/save-two-churches/

Pogi. Thanks for your especially thoughtful reply. Vatican I, not II, insists on progress in knowledge and understanding. But progress does not dismiss, but builds on what came first.

 You make some strong points, with which I tend to agree, against polarizing black and white. So I accept the plausibility of your positions against black and white/true or false in some respects, but not with regard to loss of priesthood authority. Loss or retention of priesthood authority is umcompromising. With regard to that, I faithfully adhere to the Catholic, or Former-day Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, if you will. I deny the loss of priesthood authority and any need for Restoration.

Thanks again Pogi, for your earnest efforts to be of benefit to me. I trust you will forgive my ignorance, (as you must see it), as I will yours (as I must see it). If we may not worship Him who is most worthy together on earth, may we do so in heaven.

Wow...it is late. No more replies from me until Saturday. God love and bless us.

Rory

Edited January 10, 2023 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

On 1/8/2023 at 11:38 PM, Calm said:

How does that correlate though with the possibility that Satan or another nongodly supernatural force had some influence on the LDS church’s beginnings?

I have always felt the same way about the Catholic faith and that is why I have always disagreed with Elder McConkie on his comments about the Catholic Church being the whore of Babylon plus it doesn’t match imo the description of the Great and Abominable church of the Book of Mormon as close as some would claim, even if I have respected him in other ways (there is also some other stuff I highly disagree with, but I don’t think there is a person alive or who has ever been that I know quite a bit about that I don’t disagree in some way with. Probably why I never could think of someone as my role model. 

Hey...children are so easy compared to grandchildren...It has been suggested that I should accept that the order which I crave, is not always what I need. In any event...a grandchild who was dubbed "Baby Chaos" by his own parents is in my house and is now five years old. 

It is hard to concentrate. But who needs that? Sometimes we need the storm, right? 

So...good question. We are divided. The evil one is author of confusion. People who lo...okay...interruption...hopefully Will continue later...

[Calm]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

Hey...children are so easy compared to grandchildren...It has been suggested that I should accept that the order which I crave, is not always what I need. In any event...a grandchild who was dubbed "Baby Chaos" by his own parents is in my house and is now five years old. 

It is hard to concentrate. But who needs that? Sometimes we need the storm, right? 

So...good question. We are divided. The evil one is author of confusion. People who lo...okay...interruption...hopefully Will continue later...

Love the name “Baby Chaos”.  Known one or two in my day…babysat them only though as my kids and grandkids are perfect of course, 😛 …nah, just not that type of imperfect.

[3DOP]

On 1/8/2023 at 11:38 PM, Calm said:

How does that correlate though with the possibility that Satan or another nongodly supernatural force had some influence on the LDS church’s beginnings?

I have always felt the same way about the Catholic faith and that is why I have always disagreed with Elder McConkie on his comments about the Catholic Church being the whore of Babylon plus it doesn’t match imo the description of the Great and Abominable church of the Book of Mormon as close as some would claim, even if I have respected him in other ways (there is also some other stuff I highly disagree with, but I don’t think there is a person alive or who has ever been that I know quite a bit about that I don’t disagree in some way with. Probably why I never could think of someone as my role model. 

Hi calm.

For all...Calm's post was prompted by my comment about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which she quotes:

"It is as 'Christian" as any not true church..."

If the Catholic Church has a valid priesthood which has the authority from God to allow her children to bow the knee to, and receive into their bodies the flesh and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, which will save their souls, the devil will allow naturally good people to be naturally good, if this will keep them away from a life saving Sacrament. I am not begging the question of what is the true church. I say that IF the Catholic Church is true, and IF we are to understand Christ's words literally, as Catholics do, it is reasonable to think that Satan is active in the world to keep everyone away from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, in whatever way he can. Why?

"Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day."

---Jn. 6:54, 55

The claims of Rome and the claims of Salt Lake City are stupendous and polarizing. I didn't make it so and neither did the LDS. If the Catholic Church does not do what she claims, if she is fraudulent, the result is ignorant idolatry. Something that the devil would like. I do not think it is reasonable to have a neutral view about Catholic claims. If I were to become an LDS Christian, I could not think that the Catholic faith is okay. I would respect "McConkie Mormonism" in that respect.

I have never disputed the idea that Joseph Smith could never have written the Book of Mormon by virtue of his own intellectual prowess. The "outside help" if you will, was either from God, or an "angel of light" in disguise. As a Catholic I am comfortable with having a complete lack of natural explanation for the Book of Mormon. As a Catholic, this forces me to move towards a consideration of Satanic activity in the life of Joseph Smith, and in particular, the writing of the Book of Mormon. I would not think this makes LDS any less likely to be saved on an individual basis as any other Christian that is detached from the true church. The Sacraments are the ordinary way that souls are saved, but Catholics do not limit God to the Sacraments. The Catholic teaches that God  wills that souls in a state of ignorance about the true church, may nevertheless, "eat the flesh, and drink the blood of the Son of Man", in a mystical manner, that unites them with the true church even apart from the Sacrament.  

My view of the writing of the Koran, by a simple shepherd is equally difficult to explain on a natural basis. It seems to me that the major Restorationist religions, (LDS and Muslims), are both inexplicable in the same respect. This is why I say that in a sense, it is a sign of respect to attribute Satanic activity to their origins. That does not mean that Mormons and Muslims worship Satan. It means that both would be naturally good Catholics, from my point of view. As for Muslims, anecdotally, I am just now getting to a chapter in a book by Fr. Reginald Garrigou-LaGrange, O.P., which asks the question as to whether Sufi Muslim mystical experiences, come from God. Both Mormons and Muslims make claims that I cannot deny regarding how they got started. But it does not make them true. And to be deceived by an angel of light is probably a compromise on the devil's behalf. Neither Mormons nor Muslims worship Satan knowingly. And this is why I have hope for the "men of good will" in both "Christian" Restorationist societies. 

I hold that Islam is as Christian as any "not true Church" also. I am pressing send without editing. I still have company who lives me with me, and company just now who doesn't. I gotta go again. I hope it is not too confusing. The devil wants division among all men of good will, and there is visible disunity. But we must and pray for a time when we are all one visibly, and rejoice that we may hope for each other that we are invisibly united.

3DOP 

PS: One edit. I go. God bless.    

 

Edited January 22, 2023 by 3DOP

[Tacenda]

On 1/5/2023 at 11:46 AM, 3DOP said:

Pogi, thanks for your patience. I have not forgotten this post, and your very reasonable question.

I like Pogi's first question and have it for myself, how can you be a McConkie fan when he said what he did about the Catholic church. I don't get it. ETA: oops, I am going to read your response to Pogi about it, sorry!

Edited January 22, 2023 by Tacenda