Spencer W Kimball’s Grandson turns in Temple Recommend

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It's like "joining" a Buddhist community and refusing to meditate, but you like the people who do, or the idea.

We are a PATH, not a bench by the roadside, watching others walking down the path.

Orthopraxy.  You follow the steps or there is no reason to be there. 

I am beginning to understand much better how my Buddhist phase helped me be LDS.

It was never my intent to sit on the pew or bench. Watching others. I am not sure I follow that metaphor, except as an indication that nope, it isn't ok to do what we are doing, or were doing, or whatever. I like the term orthpraxy. Now that I understand!

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

That's the problem- you are an observer chronicling the faith, not a participant

 

I don't know about that. You'd have to ask the folks in our ward if we were merely observers. That is a pretty bad characterization of our time in the ward. Methinks we participated more than most in fact. I cleaned an awful lot of toilets in our five years there! My wife served in the kitchen for a lot of funeral dinners, after Sacrament Fast Sunday dinners. We raked a ton of leaves. I gave a lot of tours and talks to visitors, often prayed, read scriptures and from little pieces of paper the EQ teacher handed out! I do stipulate to being an observer however. When I was working full-time I was often deemed an organizational anthropologist. Maybe to keep peace with you I would say I was a participant observer. Would you accept that?

[MiserereNobis]

57 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I am beginning to understand much better how my Buddhist phase helped me be LDS.

Did you have a specific type of Buddhist phase? I practiced Thai Theravada Buddhism, particularly Ajahn Chah's forest tradition. I did a few retreats at the Abhayagiri Monastery in Mendocino county. What a beautiful location!

I see how my Buddhist phase helped guide me to Catholicism.

Our lives are the results of our paradigms, eh?

 

[mfbukowski]

31 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I don't know about that. You'd have to ask the folks in our ward if we were merely observers. That is a pretty bad characterization of our time in the ward. Methinks we participated more than most in fact. I cleaned an awful lot of toilets in our five years there! My wife served in the kitchen for a lot of funeral dinners, after Sacrament Fast Sunday dinners. We raked a ton of leaves. I gave a lot of tours and talks to visitors, often prayed, read scriptures and from little pieces of paper the EQ teacher handed out! I do stipulate to being an observer however. When I was working full-time I was often deemed an organizational anthropologist. Maybe to keep peace with you I would say I was a participant observer. Would you accept that?

Whatever.

Your participation is not spiritual. If you just want to clean toilets in someone else's ashram, wonderful and thank you.

 

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Did you have a specific type of Buddhist phase? I practiced Thai Theravada Buddhism, particularly Ajahn Chah's forest tradition. I did a few retreats at the Abhayagiri Monastery in Mendocino county. What a beautiful location!

I see how my Buddhist phase helped guide me to Catholicism.

Our lives are the results of our paradigms, eh?

 

Yep!  But you made it farther up the covenant path- I was just a student, and adapted mindful meditation to my needs.  I was kinda shopping to take it further but then I saw contemporary American Neopragmatism as a perfect match with Mormonism, and here I be. 

The meditating Mormons.

There are lots of us, even here on the board.

[MiserereNobis]

39 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The meditating Mormons.

There are lots of us, even here on the board.

@pogi, I seem to recall you meditate, too?

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Whatever.

Your participation is not spiritual. If you just want to clean toilets in someone else's ashram, wonderful and thank you.

 

That is so so so so very unkind. For the thirteenth time I am done with you. I have no idea why you have to be so unkind!

[pogi]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

@pogi, I seem to recall you meditate, too?

I do indeed.  

I kind of fell into it naturally and unintentionally.  It was the result and process of working through an addiction.  I thought it a good idea to just commit myself to praying for 10 minutes/day to show God that I was serious and to petition some help that I desperately needed.   I don't know why I committed to a time of 10 minutes, but I am glad I did.  I quickly ran out of words to say and just did a lot of sitting and watching my mind wander around, trying to continually refocus my attention on communion with God.   I soon realized that what I was doing was probably a lot like meditating.  I got curious and started researching for "faith based meditation", or "Christian meditation" to see if there was such a thing.  That's where I ran into a rich tradition of contemplative prayer in the Catholic faith.  I studied from some contemporary Benedictine monks and read some of the earlier writings from the mystic traditions, like Interior Castle by Teresa of Avila.  In researching further about meditation I learned about Buddhist practices and gravitated towards mindfulness meditation.   I kind of practice my own hybrid which incorporates principles of personal revelation and spiritual self-reliance taught in Mormonism.   It has been life changing. 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

That is so so so so very unkind. For the thirteenth time I am done with you. I have no idea why you have to be so unkind!

I agree and apologize.  It has been a difficult day, and I simply am unable to put myself in your place, so yet again I must never reply to you.  I really have never heard of anyone like you before, and IF there us a good side to all this, thanks for the opportunity for me to yet again explore and hopefully overcome this central flaw in my character.

In an odd way, I think you have become a kind of minister to me.  I wish you well.

Edited February 4, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree and apologize.  It has been a difficult day, and I simply am unable to put myself in your place, so yet again I must never reply to you.  I really have never heard of anyone like you before, and IF there us a good side to all this, thanks for the opportunity for me to yet again explore and hopefully overcome this central flaw in my character.

In an odd way, I think you have become a kind of minister to me.  I wish you well.

I apologize as well. I admire you and your vast knowledge. Please reply to me. Just please believe I am not your critic, neither am I anti-anything except perhaps those who think they are the only and all others are less than. I admit to the fact that sets me off. Whatever it is worth I have never been in this place before either. I have moved many times in my life, both under my family of origin and that of my current little nuclear family. We have always found a church home wherever we have lived. We have never had to submit to a new ordinance to join, especially not in a way that denigrates any of my prior ordinances - baptism, communion, ordination, licensure, etc. We have enjoyed our time in the ward and certainly been stretched by it. As you and everyone else on this forum knows I have struggled greatly with not being able to minister in the formal spiritual sense for the first time in my adult life. It is perhaps the most unique of all the unique things about the LDS church that we have faced. None of this is easy. I often say too much on this forum because in a strange and somewhat inaccurate way it is my safe place to vent a bit. Perhaps not so much about the church itself, but because of my experience of some aspects of its polity. That is a very complex and new experience for me. Take care and please stick with me. I mean neither you or anyone else here any harm.

Edited February 4, 2023 by Navidad

[MustardSeed]

Wasn’t C.Okazaki (sp) also formerly Buddhist? 

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  That raises some important philosophical questions for me.  I have been analogizing a person's "relationship" with the Restored Gospel (and the Church) with a person's "relationship" with his spouse and children.  Is a man better off remaining in a marriage materially diminished in love/affection/devotion?  To remain - using a paraphrase of your wording - "successfully married without being a full husband?"  I suppose the answer to that question could be

• a "yes" ("I'm staying for the sake of the children" or "I'm staying to keep my covenants" or some such),
• a qualified or conditional "yes" ("I'm staying in the hope that we can rekindle what we felt at earlier stages of our marriage"),
• a qualified/conditional "no" ("There is no point in staying unless there is a decent chance of rehabilitating the relationship to something like what it was in the earlier stages of our marriage"), or
• a hard "no" ("My affections and love for my wife are irretrievably gone and broken, and marriage without love or hope of regaining it is no marriage at all").

There could be many analogies.  So I guess this one works.  And the points above are good options as to why someone may stay in a marriage that is less than fulfilling.  And at times that works for a life time.  At times it doesn't.  Some marriage should come to an end. Both parties might be better off to end a marriage in some cases.  But a marriage is not a church that claims to be God's only true and living church.  So there is a difference I think.

 

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

So are there ways "to be successfully active without being a full believer"? 

Other faith traditions seem to manage this. As I have noted, I live in an area where they are a lot of Catholics.  I have a number of partners who are believing and participating Catholics. Yet they have ideas and beliefs that diverge with their church.  And they seem to be able to discuss these things openly and remain in good standing.

 

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

I suppose "successfully" is an eye-of-the-beholder sort of thing.  Putting that aside, though, I suppose I have been juxtaposing Kimball's PIMO "middle way" approach with the "all in" exhortations I see in the scriptures and in the counsel from living prophets and apostles (whereas you are, I think, juxtaposing the "middle way" and "all out" approaches).  "No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God."  (Luke 9:62.) "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.  So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."  (Rev. 3:15-16.)  We all must allow for weaknesses, sins, failures, omissions, etc. which impair our devotions to God, as that is part and parcel of the Restored Gospel.  Many of us have "looked back" after putting our hand to the plough, and most or all of us are "lukewarm" at times.  But these are hopefully temporary conditions, and after a time we "look forward" again, we choose between "hot" and "cold."

See above.  I suppose these passages can be used as a hammer to drive the point of the nail home that if you are not "fully" in or committed you are somehow less than others who are.  Being fully in I guess can vary based on your faith tradition. I have noted many times that it seems pretty clear that The Church of Jesus Christ is a very high demand religion.  I think it ranks amongst the highest demand religions that I know of.

 

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

It seems that Kimball's "middle way" PIMO approach encourages a deliberate and prolonged, rather than a circumstantial and temporary, sojourn "on the edge."  A calculated decision to be or remain "lukewarm."  

Maybe.  But so what.  What if that is the best way someone can make things work for them?  What if it is that or exit? I can tell you that for me, were I to go back it would never be in the same sense or to the same level it was before I stopped participating. To much has changed for me.  I can't put the genie back in the bottle. I doubt I would want to hold a temple recommend.  I would likely not tithe.  I may be willing to hold a nominal calling but not one that takes a lot of time.  I doubt I could even be literal as far as most if not all the truth claims of the church. I am highly skeptical that the BoM is historical and the BoA seems an invention of Joseph Smith.  WIth religion in general I doubt I could ever grasp abe believe in a theistic God and certainly not the God that was once a man god or Mormonism. Were I to go back I just don't see these things changing for me. I would attend in order to have some sort of spiritual connection in my life as well as being part of such a community.

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have as friends a married couple.  I love them both dearly.  As with pretty much any couple, they both have their strengths and weaknesses.  For some time now, their weaknesses have been superseding their devotion to each other, such that are presently on the cusp of divorce.  If they sought marital counseling, would the therapist encourage them to maintain their relationship in this condition?  To simply accept the largely ambivalent, often tense, occasionally overtly acrimonious state of their marriage?  To adopt this state as permanent, fixed and immutable?  Likely not.

I do not know. I am not a therapist. 

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Kimball is advertising himself as having "spent the past 25 years 'on the inside of the edge' of Mormonism."  And he is encouraging others to join him there.  Riess has been publishing similar encouragements for years now.  For example, he is apparently encouraging members disregard the worthiness requirements of obtaining and retaining a Temple Recommend, to feel free to live in ways incompatible with having a TR.

Well I have  not explored Kimball's position all that much and if he is promoting that rather than writing about how he makes it work for him and  how others may make it work for them if they are in a similar position I think that is not good. I would not do that.

 

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here are the first few questions from the TR interview (new in bold) :

These are all "in the heart and mind" questions.  And none of them are absolutist, either in their wording or intent.

Yes.  And when I expressed doubts about those but was able to answer the practice ones properly I was given a temple recommend.  Twice. I was shocked.

 

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps so.  As between "PIMO" and "all out," the former is preferable.  But as between "PIMO" and "all in," the latter is preferable (from a Latter-day Saint perspective, that is).

Well I am happy that you could accept a PIMO of all out.  I understand what the all in would be preferably to you. All I would like to see is if someone is open about their PIMO position and they still want to participate that they are accepted and loved  But there should be proper behavior from the person who is PIMO. They should not be strident or proselyte their positions.  Though it would be nice if they could discuss their ideas respectfully in an open setting and I think this is still tough.

 

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

I would also encourage you to read Bruce and Marie Hafen's Faith Is Not Blind, summarized here:

Again, said previously: "I did not chose to not believe.  The evidence led me to the conclusions that would no longer allow me to believe nor pretend to and hold on to my personal integrity."

I have read the Hafen article in the past. I will take a look again.  I do not recall much of it.

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

I suspect that you and other Latter-day Saints have looked at the same "evidence," but have done so with different presumptions, expectations, perspectives, etc.  These differences have resulted in a marked divergence, with you reaching "conclusions that would no longer allow {you} to believe nor pretend to and hold on to {your} personal integrity," while Latter-day Saints have, as the Hafens put it, "arrive{d} at ... a simplicity that transcends complexity — 'a settled and informed perspective that has been tempered and tested by time and experience.'"

In other words, I think the Hafens are encouraging an "all in" over "PIMO" approach, whereas Kimball is encouraging a "PIMO" over "all out" approach.  I hope you give consideration to the former.

Thanks,

-Smac

Everyone reaches different conclusions that may puzzle those who have an opposite conclusion.

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

I would also encourage you to read Bruce and Marie Hafen's Faith Is Not Blind, summarized here:

I see the Hafen reference is to a book not an article so I was in error to state I had read it.

[Navidad]

On 2/3/2023 at 9:41 AM, smac97 said:

I have been analogizing a person's "relationship" with the Restored Gospel (and the Church) with a person's "relationship" with his spouse and children.  Is a man better off remaining in a marriage materially diminished in love/affection/devotion?  To remain - using a paraphrase of your wording - "successfully married without being a full husband?"  I suppose the answer to that question could be

• a "yes" ("I'm staying for the sake of the children" or "I'm staying to keep my covenants" or some such),
• a qualified or conditional "yes" ("I'm staying in the hope that we can rekindle what we felt at earlier stages of our marriage"),
• a qualified/conditional "no" ("There is no point in staying unless there is a decent chance of rehabilitating the relationship to something like what it was in the earlier stages of our marriage"), or
• a hard "no" ("My affections and love for my wife are irretrievably gone and broken, and marriage without love or hope of regaining it is no marriage at all").

Hi my friend: I cannot imagine comparing a relationship to a church to a relationship between husband and wife except in the context of Christ and the church. Without divulging something I am not supposed to know (sounds like Masonry!) have you made covenants to and with your church? Are not LDS covenants between the person and Christ/Father/Holy Spirit? Even something like tithing is not a covenant to a church but to the Savior. I am trying to understand your analogizing, but can't get my head around it. I love my sister, but I don't have covenants to her like I do to my wife. I have attended many churches of many denominations, pastored in a few, and preached in many more as a guest preacher. I have been a professor in two denominational institutions of higher learning and was never a member of either denomination! I am trying to understand marrying a church. I just can't seem to get my head around that. Do most LDS folks believe they are covenantally (not a word) married to their church or to Christ? I am not challenging, just trying to understand the mindset. You bring up something I have never ever thought of before. For me a church, group, or denomination is where I worship for a given place at a given time. It is not what I worship, nor do I believe I cannot worship anywhere else. Take care

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Hi my friend: I cannot imagine comparing a relationship to a church to a relationship between husband and wife except in the context of Christ and the church. Without divulging something I am not supposed to know (sounds like Masonry!) have you made covenants to and with your church? Are not LDS covenants between the person and Christ/Father/Holy Spirit? Even something like tithing is not a covenant to a church but to the Savior. I am trying to understand your analogizing, but can't get my head around it. I love my sister, but I don't have covenants to her like I do to my wife. I have attended many churches of many denominations, pastored in a few, and preached in many more as a guest preacher. I have been a professor in two denominational institutions of higher learning and was never a member of either denomination! I am trying to understand marrying a church. I just can't seem to get my head around that. Do most LDS folks believe they are covenantally (not a word) married to their church or to Christ? I am not challenging, just trying to understand the mindset. You bring up something I have never ever thought of before. For me a church, group, or denomination is where I worship for a given place at a given time. It is not what I worship, nor do I believe I cannot worship anywhere else. Take care

Ummm yea I think in Mormonism you do make covenants with the Church.  And even the covenants with God and Christ are really considered with the Church because as ELder Kevin Hamilton noted(See my thread on his talk) Jesus and his Church (meaning  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) are inseparable.

[Tacenda]

19 hours ago, Navidad said:

That is so so so so very unkind. For the thirteenth time I am done with you. I have no idea why you have to be so unkind!

That is too bad, I'm disappointed too.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Hi my friend: I cannot imagine comparing a relationship to a church to a relationship between husband and wife except in the context of Christ and the church. Without divulging something I am not supposed to know (sounds like Masonry!) have you made covenants to and with your church? Are not LDS covenants between the person and Christ/Father/Holy Spirit? Even something like tithing is not a covenant to a church but to the Savior. I am trying to understand your analogizing, but can't get my head around it. I love my sister, but I don't have covenants to her like I do to my wife. I have attended many churches of many denominations, pastored in a few, and preached in many more as a guest preacher. I have been a professor in two denominational institutions of higher learning and was never a member of either denomination! I am trying to understand marrying a church. I just can't seem to get my head around that. Do most LDS folks believe they are covenantally (not a word) married to their church or to Christ? I am not challenging, just trying to understand the mindset. You bring up something I have never ever thought of before. For me a church, group, or denomination is where I worship for a given place at a given time. It is not what I worship, nor do I believe I cannot worship anywhere else. Take care

Now in my state of being a not sure of my belief member of TCOJCOLDS, I was taken aback that the church fully admits that the masonic actions in the temple, were just a vehicle for Joseph Smith to put in the covenants for members to make. And when I first took my endowments out that would have been the furthest thing from my mind. But oh well. 

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

That is too bad, I'm disappointed too.

He has apologized. I appreciate that very much. I am sure I am frustrating at time to faithful Saints. Take care.

[manol]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

... I am sure I am frustrating at time to faithful Saints...

I was driving along once and looked up and saw a full-size billboard that said, in huge letters, "TRY GOD".

I'm sure God finds me very trying indeed.

Edited February 4, 2023 by manol

[Calm]

6 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Wasn’t C.Okazaki (sp) also formerly Buddhist? 

According to wiki, born and raised, but converted when 15 after 4 years of attending church.

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hi my friend: I cannot imagine comparing a relationship to a church to a relationship between husband and wife except in the context of Christ and the church.

Yes, that is the context that, in my view, justifies the comparison.  There are others as well.  

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

Without divulging something I am not supposed to know (sounds like Masonry!) have you made covenants to and with your church?

I have made covenants to God about the Church (and, for that matter, about my wife).

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

Are not LDS covenants between the person and Christ/Father/Holy Spirit?

They are.

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

Even something like tithing is not a covenant to a church but to the Savior.

For me, that's like saying "My marital covenants are not to my wife, but to the Savior."  

If the Church of Jesus Christ is what claims to be, then I don't think I can differentiate in this way.

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am trying to understand your analogizing, but can't get my head around it. I love my sister, but I don't have covenants to her like I do to my wife. I have attended many churches of many denominations, pastored in a few, and preached in many more as a guest preacher. I have been a professor in two denominational institutions of higher learning and was never a member of either denomination! I am trying to understand marrying a church.

Well, it's a comparison between metaphors, so I don't think the parameters are intended to be precise.

I have made covenants with God about certain things.

At baptism and confirmation, and when we take the Sacrament:

Quote

We covenant to:

• Come into the fold of God.
• Take upon ourselves the name of Jesus Christ.
• Stand as a witness for Jesus Christ.
• Always keep the commandments.
• Bear one another’s burdens.
• Manifest a determination to serve God unto the end.
• Manifest by works that we have repented of our sins.
• Prepare to receive the Holy Ghost for the complete remission of sins.

In order to qualify for the gift of the Holy Ghost we must fulfill the covenants of baptism, continue in humility and faith, and otherwise be worthy of the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost (see Articles of Faith 1:4).

We covenant to:

• Renew our baptismal covenants.
• Recommit to take upon ourselves the name of Jesus Christ, always remember Him, and keep His commandments. Partaking of the sacrament is a time for personal introspection, repentance, and rededication.

The "fold of God" is, I think, the Church.

"Bear{ing} one another's burdens" has to do, to some extent, with the Church.

"Serv{ing} God unto the end" involves the Church.

Repenting of our sins involves the Church.

Taking the Sacrament involves the Church.

When we receive the priesthood:

Quote

Priesthood holders covenant to:

• Receive in good faith and with honest intent both the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods (see D&C 84:33).
• Magnify callings by fulfilling all responsibilities associated with the priesthood offices they are called to.
• Teach the word of God and labor with all their might to advance the Lord’s purposes (see Jacob 1:19).
• Obtain a knowledge of the gospel (see D&C 107:31).
• Give service by comforting and strengthening the Saints of God (see Mosiah 18:8–9).
• Be obedient and “give diligent heed to the words of eternal life” (D&C 84:43).
• Listen to and follow revelation from the Lord. “Live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God” (v. 44).

Ordination involves the Church.

Fulfilling priesthood responsibilities and obligations involves the Church.

In the temple endowment:

Quote

Through the endowment, Church members deepen their covenant relationship with God as they promise to follow His standards of morality, integrity, and service to others. In this sacred ceremony, Church members make covenants “to keep the law of obedience, the law of sacrifice, the law of the gospel, the law of chastity, and the law of consecration” (David A. Bednar, “Prepared to Obtain Every Needful Thing,” Ensign or Liahona, May 2019, 103).

The Church is involved in all of these covenants in one way or another.

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

I just can't seem to get my head around that. Do most LDS folks believe they are covenantally (not a word) married to their church or to Christ?

Neither, I think.  Consider Mosiah 5:7:

Quote

And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.

Again, these are metaphors, but with real meaning.

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am not challenging, just trying to understand the mindset. You bring up something I have never ever thought of before. For me a church, group, or denomination is where I worship for a given place at a given time. It is not what I worship, nor do I believe I cannot worship anywhere else. Take care

We don't worship the Church either.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Navidad]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

The "fold of God" is, I think, the Church.

Thanks for your kind and thorough reply. I am happy to receive it as you have offered it. The only sentence I struggle with is the one I quoted. I am familiar with the term "the fold of God." It is used in Mosiah 18 and possibly/probably others that don't come to mind. In the NT, the Greek word aules which is the word that is used to refer to a sheepfold in the NT is used 12 times. It refers to a courtyard, a patio, a palace, and yes, a place sheep are kept outside. Its most basic use is as a roofless open area in a palace or home. I think of it as my patio out back between our house and the river. Christ is portrayed as the door to that fold, not the fold itself, and as the shepherd. It might be deemed a place of safety from the wolves, thieves, etc.

Whenever you and many others here use the term "the church" you seem to be referring specifically and only to the LDS church. Am I wrong? The intent of the shepherd passage in John 10 seems to be that Christ is both the door (to the fold- open area - patio - courtyard) and the shepherd. He is the access and then once sheep are in, he is the protector and guardian. Given all the conversations I have had (probably hundreds by now) with folks on this forum I conclude that Christ is the door to the fold, which door is found exclusively and only in the LDS church in this dispensation. Is that correct? Then the only protective place (the fold) in this dispensation is the LDS church. Is that correct? So then, all Christians since 1830 have opened door #2 which opens to  . . . . . . what? An empty room? A place that isn't safe? A place without a shepherd? Can you be specific? - Of course you can be specific. Will you be specific is perhaps a better question.

I think I am safe in asking you this? It is something I think about more than anything else in my journey through the land of LDSdom.

What specifically and no kidding is the spiritual condition of all the millions and millions of Christians who have sincerely and truly dedicated themselves to Christ over the many years of this dispensation? The best I can ever get in a response is that I (as a representative of that vast group) have what you deem the "light of Christ" given to all humans- nothing unique to the non-LDS Christian. I may have the occasional visit of the Holy Spirit (a rarity), but certainly do not have the "gift of the Holy Spirit," nor the gifts of the Holy Spirit, nor the Spirit's permanent indwelling (permanent in the sense of all the time while being worthy).

I am your brother, so I am called brother so and so . . . but only because you and I are both literally physically the offspring of the Father, hence literally all humans are brothers or sisters of Christ, but not in Christ. When you call Brother Farnsworth (just to use a common LDS name) Brother, it is with a capital B; I am brother with a small b. Is that fair? I find my very kind LDS friends very hesitant to say to us individually what they say consistently in their testimonies when speaking in broad generalities about non-LDS folks. We (non-LDS Christians) are truly not of the sheepfold of John 10 or Mosiah 18, are we? Our relationship to the Savior is somehow and in some indescribable (at least no LDS friend has ever described it to me) way, very different from that of the Saint. Perhaps for you, as you have indicated, the LDS Church is the corral. Those of us non-LDS Christians are out on the potrero, on the mountainside unprotected and vulnerable to all its dangers with no shepherd to protect us. Is that fair? Thanks. I said at the beginning of this I believe I am safe in asking you these questions. That is important to me. Thank you.  

Edited February 5, 2023 by Navidad

[smac97]

On 2/3/2023 at 2:33 PM, mfbukowski said:

Whatever.

Your participation is not spiritual. If you just want to clean toilets in someone else's ashram, wonderful and thank you.

 

Oi.  This is a terrible thing to say.

Thanks,

Smac

[Tacenda]

49 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for your kind and thorough reply. I am happy to receive it as you have offered it. The only sentence I struggle with is the one I quoted. I am familiar with the term "the fold of God." It is used in Mosiah 18 and possibly/probably others that don't come to mind. In the NT, the Greek word aules which is the word that is used to refer to a sheepfold in the NT is used 12 times. It refers to a courtyard, a patio, a palace, and yes, a place sheep are kept outside. Its most basic use is as a roofless open area in a palace or home. I think of it as my patio out back between our house and the river. Christ is portrayed as the door to that fold, not the fold itself, and as the shepherd. It might be deemed a place of safety from the wolves, thieves, etc.

Whenever you and many others here use the term "the church" you seem to be referring specifically and only to the LDS church. Am I wrong? The intent of the shepherd passage in John 10 seems to be that Christ is both the door (to the fold- open area - patio - courtyard) and the shepherd. He is the access and then once sheep are in, he is the protector and guardian. Given all the conversations I have had (probably hundreds by now) with folks on this forum I conclude that what Christ is the door to the fold, which door is found exclusively and only in the LDS church in this dispensation. Is that correct? Then the only protective place (the fold) in this dispensation is the LDS church. Is that correct? So then, all Christians since 1830 have opened door #2 which opens to  . . . . . . what? An empty room? A place that isn't safe? A place without a shepherd? Can you be specific? - Of course you can be specific. Will you be specific is perhaps a better question.

I think I am safe in asking you this? It is something I think about more than anything else in my journey through the land of LDSdom.

What specifically and no kidding is the spiritual condition of all the millions and millions of Christians who have sincerely and truly dedicated themselves to Christ over the many years of this dispensation? The best I can ever get in a response is that I (as a representative of that vast group) have what you deem the "light of Christ" given to all humans- nothing unique to the non-LDS Christian. I may have the occasional visit of the Holy Spirit (a rarity), but certainly do not have the "gift of the Holy Spirit," nor the gifts of the Holy Spirit, nor the Spirit's permanent indwelling (permanent in the sense of all the time while being worthy).

I am your brother, so I am called brother so and so . . . but only because you and I are both literally physically the offspring of the Father, hence literally all humans are brothers or sisters of Christ, but not in Christ. When you call Brother Farnsworth (just to use a common LDS name) Brother, it is with a capital B; I am brother with a small b. Is that fair? I find my very kind LDS friends very hesitant to say to us individually what they say consistently in their testimonies when speaking in broad generalities about non-LDS folks. We (non-LDS Christians) are truly not of the sheepfold of John 10 or Mosiah 18, are we? Our relationship to the Savior is somehow and in some indescribable (at least no LDS friend has ever described it to me) way, very different from that of the Saint. Perhaps for you, as you have indicated, the LDS Church is the corral. Those of us non-LDS Christians are out on the potrero, on the mountainside unprotected and vulnerable to all its dangers with no shepherd to protect us. Is that fair? Thanks. I said at the beginning of this I believe I am safe in asking you these questions. That is important to me. Thank you.  

I think every ward needs a Navidad and their wife!

[manol]

7 hours ago, Navidad said:

What specifically and no kidding is the spiritual condition of all the millions and millions of Christians who have sincerely and truly dedicated themselves to Christ over the many years of this dispensation? The best I can ever get in a response is that I (as a representative of that vast group) have what you deem the "light of Christ" given to all humans- nothing unique to the non-LDS Christian. I may have the occasional visit of the Holy Spirit (a rarity), but certainly do not have the "gift of the Holy Spirit," nor the gifts of the Holy Spirit, nor the Spirit's permanent indwelling (permanent in the sense of all the time while being worthy). 

I am your brother, so I am called brother so and so . . . but only because you and I are both literally physically the offspring of the Father, hence literally all humans are brothers or sisters of Christ, but not in Christ. When you call Brother Farnsworth (just to use a common LDS name) Brother, it is with a capital B; I am brother with a small b. Is that fair? I find my very kind LDS friends very hesitant to say to us individually what they say consistently in their testimonies when speaking in broad generalities about non-LDS folks. We (non-LDS Christians) are truly not of the sheepfold of John 10 or Mosiah 18, are we? Our relationship to the Savior is somehow and in some indescribable (at least no LDS friend has ever described it to me) way, very different from that of the Saint. Perhaps for you, as you have indicated, the LDS Church is the corral. Those of us non-LDS Christians are out on the potrero, on the mountainside unprotected and vulnerable to all its dangers with no shepherd to protect us. Is that fair? Thanks. I said at the beginning of this I believe I am safe in asking you these questions. That is important to me. Thank you.  

When I was active LDS, my perception was pretty much what you describe here.  I considered the "Light of Christ" to be nothing special since it was something that everyone has.  My recollection was that having the Light of Christ was equated with having a conscience (which I'm not sure a mental health professional [paging @BlueDreams] would agree that "everyone" has).  My understanding was that the Gift of the Holy Ghost was something special and distinctive reserved only for Latter-day Saints, and that the Gift of the Holy Ghost "out-ranked" the Light of Christ.

My current perception does not "rank" something which is "of Christ" as lesser than something which is "of the Holy Ghost", nor do I see them as being separate things.  My current perception is much more inclusive than what I believed when I was active LDS, but that doesn't help your situation any. 

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I think every ward needs a Navidad and their wife!

My understanding is that Navidad and his wife view the Latter-day Saints in their ward as fully their Brothers and Sisters but this view is not reciprocated, and the disparity is taking a toll on them. 

Perhaps some day there will be a fundamental paradigm shift away from separation as "The Plan".  Perhaps some day "Oneness" will be seen as more than just a synonym for "in agreement". 

Edited February 5, 2023 by manol