7 Reasons Why Mormonism and Christianity Are Not the Same

[Navidad]

17 minutes ago, webbles said:

that we have eternal families,

Could you recommend a deep dive (article or book - deeper than the LDS website) into the LDS concept/doctrine of eternal families?  I am still trying to figure that concept out. I have been to at least a dozen LDS funerals and can never get straight what all the different speakers are talking about. Going backwards in time ---- forward in time. Not leaving an "empty chair" at the family table in the eternities. Family systems are an important concept to me. I don't understand how it is all going to work. Does the family table in the eternities hold millions? Family of origin? Families married into? I really would like to understand this important concept/doctrine better. Thanks.

[MustardSeed]

18 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I don't have the reference right now, but at one time in the early church, Christian was not a good thing to be. Christian was a label for the Christian churches or followers that Joseph was told were abominable. So it is interesting that now the church is heavily concentrated on Jesus and being called Christian. Sure the church has always had Christ as it's head, but current living prophet was right up there as well. I guess the church evolves, and is living. 

Tacenda and I listen to the same pod “At Last She Said It”.  I recall one episode discussing this topic. I will go back and see if I can find it.

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Tacenda and I listen to the same pod “At Last She Said It”.  I recall one episode discussing this topic. I will go back and see if I can find it.

Those two ladies are liberating me at 61!

[MustardSeed]

36 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Could you recommend a deep dive (article or book - deeper than the LDS website) into the LDS concept/doctrine of eternal families?  I am still trying to figure that concept out. I have been to at least a dozen LDS funerals and can never get straight what all the different speakers are talking about. Going backwards in time ---- forward in time. Not leaving an "empty chair" at the family table in the eternities. Family systems are an important concept to me. I don't understand how it is all going to work. Does the family table in the eternities hold millions? Family of origin? Families married into? I really would like to understand this important concept/doctrine better. Thanks.

I don’t recommend funerals as being a super source for doctrine. Most funerals sound like “we will see him again, he is s with his wife now, he finally is with his mother again” etc. 
Truth is, we don’t have a single clue what’s going on. The person who has died is either in spirit prison or in paradise. You don’t hear anyone in the funeral saying “ it’s possible that uncle Fred is in spirit prison right now”. 
I have attended the funeral of a few nitwits, and the conversation from the pulpit is of course a very positive message.

There is a plethora of information on the family in lds.org. Do you have specific questions?

[MustardSeed]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Those two ladies are liberating me at 61!

I don’t agree with everything that they say. I feel like they have gained the following and now they have to dig to find things to complain about. Be sure to think for yourself, take what works, and use discernible thought for the rest. Advice, for what it’s worth.

[Sara H]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Could you recommend a deep dive (article or book - deeper than the LDS website) into the LDS concept/doctrine of eternal families?  I am still trying to figure that concept out. I have been to at least a dozen LDS funerals and can never get straight what all the different speakers are talking about. Going backwards in time ---- forward in time. Not leaving an "empty chair" at the family table in the eternities. Family systems are an important concept to me. I don't understand how it is all going to work. Does the family table in the eternities hold millions? Family of origin? Families married into? I really would like to understand this important concept/doctrine better. Thanks.

My husband and I were just recently discussing this, so if I may, I'd want to provide an answer. We think we can be "eternal" because we consider our consciousness to be something that has always been around. Some people believe it is floating around in space, ready to be paired with our spirit and make us God's spiritual children when god is ready to form us for his purpose. We spent aeons in heaven, with God and the Mother of Heaven, and came here to demonstrate our worthiness and the knowledge we gained there by keeping the commandments. While on Earth, we acquire a physical body, completing the triad of mind, body, and soul; we are also sealed into eternal families that will last forever; and, barring any defections, we will all spend eternity in heaven as a happy, loving family; and, should we reach Godhood, we will create our own planets and populate them with spirit children. 

 

Edited June 18, 2023 by Sara H

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Could you recommend a deep dive (article or book - deeper than the LDS website) into the LDS concept/doctrine of eternal families?  I am still trying to figure that concept out. I have been to at least a dozen LDS funerals and can never get straight what all the different speakers are talking about. Going backwards in time ---- forward in time. Not leaving an "empty chair" at the family table in the eternities. Family systems are an important concept to me. I don't understand how it is all going to work. Does the family table in the eternities hold millions? Family of origin? Families married into? I really would like to understand this important concept/doctrine better. Thanks.

I don't have any recommendations, sorry.  One thing to note, is that there are really two ideas behind "eternal families".  The first is eternal marriages/sealings where a couple is sealed together through the priesthood authority.  The second is eternal sealings between generations (parents to children).  We know a lot more about the first than we know about the second.

Another note is that we believe we are already in one large family.  We believe that we are all literal children of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother.  So we are spirit siblings of everyone.  That is one of the reasons why we use the term "Brother" and "Sister" in church.  I'm not entirely sure if our pre-mortal family relationship is related to the generational sealings that we perform on earth.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Sara H said:

In the first vision, Christianity and all other religions are explicitly rejected. According to our doctrine, the original gospel was hidden from the world after Jesus' death so that the faith wouldn't be corrupted. That is fundamental teaching. Would you agree that it was brought back to Earth to scream loudly that TRUE CHRISTIANITY has returned to Earth? 

You keep asserting this as if it is a fact without actually showing it or engaging with the evidence that contradicts your position. It appears your claim is based on emotion and preconceived beliefs rather than what is documented. 

I would agree that it came back to scream loudly that the fullness of the Gospel has been restored, I don’t believe using “true Christianity” as a substitute for the fullness is accurate. 

[Emily]

5 hours ago, Sara H said:

Would you be disappointed if, after five years, an update to the WOW removed the prohibition on coffee consumption? Because I'm done with the WOW if it's ever changed to appease the critics. If it happens, I'm done witg the church for good. But I can see that the WOW will be upgraded at some point, and the constraints will be loosened.

It would be really odd if anyone left the church over the prohibition on coffee and tea being removed, given that the strict prohibitions on specific substances were "add-ons" to begin with. The "Word of Wisdom" was always intended to be largely up to the interpretation of the individual. Certain substances aren't good for you and should be avoided. Certain foods are better for you than other foods. Eat more of the good things and less of the not as good things. 

The church didn't add specific strictures or apply specific penalties to the use of tobacco, coffee and tea until it became obvious the members needed some help getting past their addictions.

The focus on tobacco, coffee and tea has already drifted in the manuals. WoW lessons are more about avoiding addictions of all types, and practicing good health choices in general. 

The church has been moving in a "spirit of the law" direction, slowly but inexorably since it's inception. It's just that within the last few decades it's really picked up speed.

It's easiest to see the trend in situations where the letter still lingered in our personal memories, modesty lessons and WoW lessons are always a case in point, but did your Home Teachers ever admonish members of your family for unseemly public behavior? (They did in the 1800s and my Dad could remember people being chewed out by their Home Teacher when he was a kid.)

Have you noticed that no one is knocking on your door lately on Fast Sunday? And before that, did the deacons remind you that fast offerings are part of your membership covenant to care for the needy? Apparently they used to do that, and my completely inactive Grandfather paid fast offerings every month as a result. He didn't keep the Word of Wisdom but he obeyed the law of offerings to the letter. 

Courts of excommunication aren't even held very often anymore - just in egregious cases where a member is endangering the well being of other members.

Any member wishing to leave the church used to have to attend a priesthood court where attempts at reconciliation could be made. Eventually members seeking withdrawal had to talk to their Bishop. It was his job to see if he could help them overcome their issues before granting record removal.  Now disaffected members turn in a letter of withdrawal to the Bishop and walk away. No one is obligated to try to give them council (though some Bishops do still try.) So long. See you around. Hope your personal choices lead you back again someday. 

The Home Study focus is just the latest in the push for a more "spirit centered/personal accountability" approach.  But it's a point on a line, not a change in direction.

 

[MiserereNobis]

16 hours ago, manol said:

If you don't mind sharing, what are some of the "best book" (or other sources) which you have found to be "scripture" (for you personally at least), but which are not within the LDS "canon"? 

The Lord of the Rings and Tolkien’s overall legendarium. It is so thoroughly Catholic in a subtle way (unlike Narnia, which is blatantly Christian).

Edited June 18, 2023 by MiserereNobis

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

How about Sidney Rigdon's Salt Sermon or his 4th July sermon? They certainly were important talks in the history of the LDS in Missouri?

I had to look at Wikipedia as I am not that familiar with the Salt Sermon…for good reason apparently. Why would we consider it scripture if there was no text that remained of it?  Simply because something is important in a historical sense doesn’t mean it should be considered important in a spiritual sense.  Plus the subject matter does not seem like it would be inspiring in the right way.

While we have the text of the July 4th Oration and I understand a lot of work was put into preparing it, including by Joseph Smith, it is not what I consider as inspiring in the right way. Why in the world would I or anyone else think of what amounts almost to a declaration of war as scripture?  Why would I want to emulate that attitude of no mercy?  Perhaps someone might interpret it as a way to get pumped up for defending the country in a time of war, but I don’t see it as helpful for the vast majority of circumstances we are living in, even if one just tried to take the sentiment of never giving in to violations of freedom and fighting for freedom in lawful, nonviolent ways.

In my time I have only heard people speak/write of them with disapproval.   They certainly have not been considered anything close to scripture for as long as I have been alive.  They are apparently only referenced on the Church’s website in the Seminary and Institute manuals mostly as examples of not following the Lord’s example or as a mistake that resulted in violence.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/foundations-of-the-restoration-teacher-manual/lesson-15-strength-amid-opposition?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times/chapter-fifteen?lang=eng

And the SS is not a top priority it seems on the JSPP site though there are several references to it in people’s journals, understandably if there is no text, but it’s interesting there isn’t more detail provided anyway.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/event/sidney-rigdons-salt-sermon

The Oration has a lot more detail as well as the actual text, but it speaks of Joseph encouraging people to study it for its historical and political value Imo, not it’s spiritual value.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/appendix-3-discourse-circa-4-july-1838/1#historical-intro

I did find a reference to the SS in BYU Speeches where Pres Oaks says it was a mistake (even if he is overly gentle imo when he did so).

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/dallin-h-oaks/sins-mistakes/. 

It would seem there is only interest in the historical aspect of the orations, no one is seeing them as scripture now and my guess is few, if any, saw them in that way in the past.

The purpose of scripture is to help us understand the ways of God better, to bring us to him. Neither of these speeches come close to that imo. 

Edited June 18, 2023 by Calm

[Sara H]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

You keep asserting this as if it is a fact without actually showing it or engaging with the evidence that contradicts your position. It appears your claim is based on emotion and preconceived beliefs rather than what is documented. 

I would agree that it came back to scream loudly that the fullness of the Gospel has been restored, I don’t believe using “true Christianity” as a substitute for the fullness is accurate. 

According to our doctrine, God has specifically rejected every other religion on the planet save for the restored gospel. How do I know this is in accordance with our doctrine? Because we believe that the holy priesthood gives us complete access to God's authority and power. Do we accept the Pope's claim that he has been consecrated as a priest by God? According to Mormon teaching, the response is negative. What about Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, or Presbyterian ministers and preachers? Do we consider them to be in possession of God-given priesthood power? Our teachings contradict that. When it comes to the possession and exercise of God's divine power and authority, do we consider any religion to be on par with us? No, since according to our teachings, we are the only Christians who possess divine priestly authority and power. 

 

My presentation of what we believe in is very objective. Instead, you appear more concerned with passing as Christians than with the original purpose of the restored gospel's return to Earth. I have a question for you. Where will the Lord rule from if the Second Coming occurs and our teachings are correct? Our teachings say he will rule from our sacred sanctuaries, not from catholic cathedrals or Joel Osteen's megachurch or the Baptist church down the block. Is it possible that the Lord would employ Methodist preachers to baptise those who accept the genuine gospel when he returns? Not in accordance with what we teach, no. Is it acceptable today for a devout Christian grandpa to stand in the prayer circle as his granddaughter is blessed? No, because our teachings say he isn't good enough of a Christian to bless his grandchild, no matter how worthy he may be. Can devout Christians who aren't Latter-day Saints still attend their daughter's temple wedding? We don't believe it's appropriate for them to enter the House of God, even though they may be good Christians. I could list dozens of ways in which we choose to stand apart from the rest of the Christian community. It all comes back to the priesthood and the belief that we have a monopoly on God's power and authority, which is the primary reason we chosen to distance ourselves from Christianity in the past.

 

I don't mind if you choose to disregard God's plain statement of his feelings regarding other religions in the first vision, in which he calls their teachers corrupt and their creeds an abomination. God's perspective on Christianity during the period of the restoration couldn't be much clearer, in my opinion. 

 

 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Sara H said:

and came here to demonstrate our worthiness and the knowledge we gained there by keeping the commandments.

Not disagreeing with the rest of your summary, but how could we demonstrate our knowledge when we have no memory of our pre-existence?

I can see perhaps demonstrating what kind of character we have developed through the eons which would reflect how knowledge has impacted us (though this seems to assume we aren’t influenced significantly by our mortal upbringing or maybe the more likely case imo that God has the ability to judge us fairly taking into account all the variables of how we are influenced outside of our control as well as our actual behaviour).

[Calm]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

The Lord of the Rings and Tolkien’s overall legendarium. It is so thoroughly Catholic in a subtle way (unlike Narnia, which is blatantly Christian).

The opening story of creation in the Silmarillion occurring not only through God’s own actions, but his direction of others and it being the harmony of their efforts that brings forth good fruit is quite inspiring Imo. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Sara H said:

My presentation of what we believe in is very objective. Instead, you appear more concerned with passing as Christians than with the original purpose of the restored gospel's return to Earth.

And yet I am the one providing documentation from the Church’s website and all you provide are as evidence are your paraphrases and conclusions. How about letting church leaders and scripture speak for themselves rather than inserting your biases into it. 
 

Your paraphrase of my concerns is a great example of your bias causing you to misrepresent what people actually say.

As for my alleged need to pass as a Christian….

I care that people recognize me as a follower of Christ, which is the only definition of Christian I care about. How can they accept the restored church as the vehicle for teaching the fulness of the gospel of Christ if they don’t recognize Saints as followers of Christ?

If I was participating on a Catholic board, I would use their language and not describe myself as part of the body of Christ and likely not a Christian according to their understanding as I view the Father and the Son and our relationship to them differently than the official teachings of the Catholic Church.  If I was on an Fundamentalist Evangelical message board, I would only call myself a Latter-day Saint and not label myself as a Christian in order to avoid them misunderstanding what I was saying since they attach meanings to the term “Christian” that I do not.  

So you are quite wrong in your analysis of what my purpose of calling myself and the Church Christian is here.  By doing so I am intending to making it clear that I follow Christ to the best of my ability, that I desire to be accepted by God as his disciple when I insist that I am a Christian.  That is my only concern.  

And it is the same with the Church.  If I were in a Catholic or Fundamentalist Evangelical setting or another that has a clear definition of “Christian” that disqualifies the Restored Church as “Christian”, I would avoid using the label of Christian for our Church….though I would also avoid using the term “nonChristian” or anything that might imply I see the Church as nonChristian myself.  I see it as both respectful and useful to use the language of the venue in which I am communicating to avoid misunderstanding.  This is a venue that has plenty of Saints and those who are not are here to engage with Saints, so it makes sense to use language that defines Saints as Christian since that is what our Church does, while also making it clear the definition I am using to avoid any confusion…or at least try to avoid.

If it was appropriate to share my testimony of the Restored Gospel in such places I would do so, but at this time the Spirit has not told me it is a good use of my time and efforts, so I don’t spend time in other faiths’ venues discussing the restored gospel even though I spend quite a bit of time researching their sites in an attempt to better understand them from their own POV because I think understanding is very important in and of itself, but also in part so if the opportunity to share my testimony does arrive, I will better communicate the message of the gospel.

We all have bias. To claim the ability to be objective (as opposed to trying to be objective) is to misunderstand it, imo. The best way to avoid presenting your bias is to use quotes and not paraphrases.  So please document your claims. This is a CFR. If you continue to just post your own comments without documentation (not just links, but quotes), I will stop responding and report you to moderators as not fulfilling a CFR. You may not be aware, but this is a board rule. You can be banned from a thread by refusing to provide requested documentation. It is not in the guidelines themselves iirc, but the mods have been enforcing CFRs for years now. Chances are they will in this case as you have been given plenty of requests to do so and yet have not. 

Edited June 18, 2023 by Calm

[InCognitus]

7 hours ago, Sara H said:

In today's culture, it makes sense for Latter-day Saints to want to project an image that is more Christian than LDS.

What is your definition of "Christian"?  Here you juxtapose "Christian" with "LDS".  But in a more recent post you deem the restore gospel to be called "TRUE CHRISTIANITY".  And you also claim that in the first vision, Christianity was rejected.  You keep changing up the meaning of the word "Christian" like you can't make up your mind which way it is, so your true meaning is not clear.  

8 hours ago, Sara H said:

Because anyone can now learn about a church's history by simply using Google, the church is having a difficult time regulating information and how the church is depicted in the public eye.

Do you recognize that there is a difference between learning about history and how people depict it?  And do you really think the church is interested in "regulating information"?  

The church has been totally open about its history.  A large portion of the original source documents of our history have been published on the Joseph Smith Papers website.  It seems to me that the church WANTS this information to be available so that people can check the sources.  The problem comes when someone spins the "history" in a peculiar way and then someone reads it and DOESN'T check the original sources.

8 hours ago, Sara H said:

All religions are enduring hardships and their membership numbers are declining.

Yes, but while other religions are declining in numbers, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is still increasing in membership.

8 hours ago, Sara H said:

However, according to our teachings, the restored gospel was not sent back to earth so that it might conceal itself somewhere in between the teachings of Baptists and Methodists, where it would no longer be subject to scrutiny and criticism. It was not brought back to earth to hide under Presbyterianism until both the coast was clear and the hostilities between religious groups had subsided. I'm sorry to say this, but it seems as though the brethren are making an effort to conceal the gospel by waving the flag of Christianity in front of it in order to avoid direct attacks from opponents. When we make more of an effort to assimilate into Christian culture, the significance of the restored gospel decreases. If you don't believe me, simply have a look at what the Community of Christ teaches in their doctrine. We are figuratively following in their footsteps, and for some inexplicable reason, we continue to lag behind them by between 40 and 50 years in terms of changes to our doctrine. Within the next two decades, the distinctiveness of the LDS way of life will no longer exist at all. 

You seem to be confusing the desire to be recognized as "Christian" with an attempt at appearing no different than other Christian denominations, or you are intentionally trying to describe those efforts in that way for some reason.

When someone says that a religions group is "not Christian" it can convey the idea that the adherents to that group does not believe in Jesus Christ or in salvation through him, and that is the real reason that the church is saying we are "Christian". 

Your attempt to paint the church as trying to blend in with and be no different than other Christian denominations isn't substantiated by fact.  If you look at every church newsroom article and topic on whether or not we are Christian, it always explains the distinct differences between the Latter-day Saints and other Christian groups. 

For example:  Gospel Topics Essay: Are “Mormons” Christian?

Quote

Conclusion
Converts across the world continue to join The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in part because of its doctrinal and spiritual distinctiveness. That distinctiveness flows from the knowledge restored to this earth, together with the power of the Holy Ghost present in the Church because of restored priesthood authority, keys, ordinances, and the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The fruits of the restored gospel are evident in the lives of its faithful members.

While members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have no desire to compromise the distinctiveness of the restored Church of Jesus Christ, they wish to work together with other Christians—and people of all faiths—to recognize and remedy many of the moral and family issues faced by society. The Christian conversation is richer for what the Latter-day Saints bring to the table. There is no good reason for Christian faiths to ostracize each other when there has never been more urgent need for unity in proclaiming the divinity and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Common Questions: Are We Christians?

Quote

Are we Christians?

Yes! Definitely. As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of the World. He loves us all more than we can imagine. Does that mean we have exactly the same beliefs as other Christian churches? No. But we definitely consider ourselves devoted followers of Jesus Christ.

Church Newsroom: Are Latter-day Saints Christian?

Quote

Are Latter-day Saints Christian?
Yes. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Christian church but is neither Catholic nor Protestant. Rather, it is a restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ as originally established by the Savior in the New Testament of the Bible. The Church does not embrace the creeds that developed in the third and fourth centuries that are now central to many other Christian churches.

Latter-day Saints believe God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to save all humanity from death and their individual sins. Jesus Christ is central to the lives of Church members. They seek to follow His example by being baptized (see Matthew 3:13–17), praying in His holy name (see Matthew 6:9–13), partaking of the sacrament (see Luke 22:19–20), doing good to others (see Acts 10:38) and bearing witness of Him through both word and deed (see James 2:26). The only way to salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ.

Church Newsroom: What Latter-day Saints Believe about Jesus Christ:

Quote

What Do We Believe About Jesus Christ?

Latter-day Saints are Christians on the basis of our doctrine, our defined relationship to Christ, our patterns of worship and our way of life.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

How Are We Different?

Latter-day Saints do not accept the Christ that emerges from centuries of debates and councils and creeds. Over the years that followed the death and resurrection of the Lord, Christians sought to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 1:3). We believe that the epistles of Paul, Peter, Jude and John suggest that the apostasy or falling away of the first-century Christian church was well underway by the close of the first century. With the deaths of the apostles and the loss of the priesthood, the institutional power to perform and oversee saving sacraments or ordinances, learn the mind of God and interpret scripture was no longer on earth. To be sure, there were noble men and women throughout the earth during the centuries that followed, religious persons of good will, learned men who sought to hold the church together and to preserve holy writ. But we believe that these acted without prophetic authority.  (etc. etc.)

 

Church Newsroom: Christian

Quote

As evidenced by its name, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints identifies itself as devoutly Christian. Though the label “Christian” is often associated with particular creedal claims which the Church does not adopt, Latter-day Saints use it to express their belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Confusion sometimes arises over whether Latter-day Saints are Christians due to doctrinal differences from those beliefs that have typically defined many other Christian churches. For example, Latter-day Saints believe that God the Father loves, weeps and rejoices with a sympathetic heart (Moses 7:28-33). They believe that the Trinity (God the Father, Christ the Son and the Holy Ghost) are three distinct personages (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22). Latter-day Saints also believe that Christ established a church during His mortal ministry, but over time its line of priestly authority, as well as certain important teachings, were lost. For this reason, they believe God called a prophet, Joseph Smith, to reestablish Christ’s church of ancient times — hence the name, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or, followers in these present times). This included reinstating living “apostles and prophets” (Ephesians 2:20). Their belief in an open canon and additional scripture — the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price — also set them apart from other Christians.

What I see in every single one of these articles is the desire to establish the fact that we believe in Jesus Christ and his divinity and in salvation through him, but also an emphasis on the things that make us different than other Christian denominations.

Sara, can you please provide any official Latter-day Saint source that attempts to claim there are no differences between Latter-day Saints and other Christian denominations in the way that you are saying?

[Calm]

10 hours ago, Sara H said:

because our teachings say he isn't good enough of a Christian to bless his grandchild, no matter how worthy he may be.

In my opinion, you have it reversed. He is a good enough Christian if he is a righteous man following the commandments of Jesus as he knows them, but is not worthy to bless his grandchild in an ordinance because he lacks authority, same as all the faithful, righteous and believing women of the Church. He could, of course, give her a blessing of faith just as the women in the Church can. 

Unless you think the women of the Church can’t perform ordinances because we aren’t good enough of a Christian? 

We (Saints) unfortunately use “worthy” as equivalent to “eligible” as well as “being righteous”, which causes a great deal of confusion, imo.  Both nonmembers and females are not eligible to perform ordinances because we are not eligible to hold the office of priesthood. 
 

If necessary I will provide documentation for my conclusions above, got other things I need to do right now, so don’t have time for now. 

Edited June 19, 2023 by Calm

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

The Lord of the Rings and Tolkien’s overall legendarium. It is so thoroughly Catholic in a subtle way (unlike Narnia, which is blatantly Christian).

I like these books, including Narnia. Except, now you are making distinctions between Catholic and Christian too! Why doesn't anybody want to be Christian anymore? 😇 I know what you mean! I am just having some fun! Have your read any of George MacDonald's children's literature? Both Lewis and Tolkien give him great credit for influencing them. He was a Scottish Congregationalist theologian who attended an Anglican church for some years. His ashes were buried close to his home of many years in northern Italy. He may have been the founder of the English (British?) children's literature genre that included Tolkien, Lewis, and in a sort of strange way A. A. Milne. Milne is another story though.

Edited June 18, 2023 by Navidad

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I like these books, including Narnia. Except, now you are making distinctions between Catholic and Christian too! Why doesn't anybody want to be Christian anymore? 😇 I know what you mean! I am just having some fun! Have your read any of George MacDonald's children's literature? Both Lewis and Tolkien give him great credit for influencing them. He was a Scottish Congregationalist theologian who attended an Anglican church for some years. His ashes were buried close to his home of many years in northern Italy. He may have been the founder of the English (British?) children's literature genre that included Tolkien, Lewis, and in a sort of strange way A. A. Milne. Milne is another story though.

I have several of George MacDonald’s children’s books on my shelf and they will be in the last group of books I say goodbye to along with Tolkien and the Narnia and Perelandra books of Lewis and my complete collection of Father Brown Stories and Dorothy L. Sayers’ Lord Peter books. Came for the fantasy or mystery, stayed for the theology and other thought provoking content.

Edited June 18, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Sara H said:

My presentation of what we believe in is very objective.

If I understand you correctly, you don’t even believe that other Christians aren’t true Christians or that they were in apostasy, so why are you insisting that the rest of us have to believe that it was full out apostasy and loss of True Christianity if we believe in the Restored Gospel?

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75358-7-reasons-why-mormonism-and-christianity-are-not-the-same/?do=findComment&comment=1210151230

Quote

I honestly feel sick now that I realise why I felt that way because I lived the most of my life believing Christianity is in a state of apostasy. I apologise for having that belief. 

 

Edited June 18, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Sara H said:

don't mind if you choose to disregard God's plain statement of his feelings regarding other religions in the first vision, in which he calls their teachers corrupt and their creeds an abomination.

Religions are more than their current teachers and creeds.  Creeds are a small part of a Christian faith’s teachings as far as I can see*** and teachers not always drawn from the general body of believers.  I don’t remember ever hearing the idea in Church that the only things taught in other Christian faiths were creeds nor that there was no truth in them even when creeds were denounced.  I have heard that some teachers in some Protestants congregations are agnostics in their personal beliefs, for example.  The fact that God focused on the teachers and the creeds the teachers pushed suggests to me that the was a lot of good in the lay members of Christian faith or perhaps he was directly connecting the teaching of creeds to corruption, so that those who taught something different than the creeds in these faiths were not seen as corrupt by him, even if they lacked authority.

***https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_creeds

Edited June 18, 2023 by Calm

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I had to look at Wikipedia as I am not that familiar with the Salt Sermon…for good reason apparently. Why would we consider it scripture if there was no text that remained of it?  Simply because something is important in a historical sense doesn’t mean it should be considered important in a spiritual sense.  Plus the subject matter does not seem like it would be inspiring in the right way.

While we have the text of the July 4th Oration and I understand a lot of work was put into preparing it, including by Joseph Smith, it is not what I consider as inspiring in the right way. Why in the world would I or anyone else think of what amounts almost to a declaration of war as scripture?  Why would I want to emulate that attitude of no mercy?  Perhaps someone might interpret it as a way to get pumped up for defending the country in a time of war, but I don’t see it as helpful for the vast majority of circumstances we are living in, even if one just tried to take the sentiment of never giving in to violations of freedom and fighting for freedom in lawful, nonviolent ways.

In my time I have only heard people speak/write of them with disapproval.   They certainly have not been considered anything close to scripture for as long as I have been alive.  They are apparently only referenced on the Church’s website in the Seminary and Institute manuals mostly as examples of not following the Lord’s example or as a mistake that resulted in violence.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/foundations-of-the-restoration-teacher-manual/lesson-15-strength-amid-opposition?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times/chapter-fifteen?lang=eng

And the SS is not a top priority it seems on the JSPP site though there are several references to it in people’s journals, understandably if there is no text, but it’s interesting there isn’t more detail provided anyway.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/event/sidney-rigdons-salt-sermon

The Oration has a lot more detail as well as the actual text, but it speaks of Joseph encouraging people to study it for its historical and political value Imo, not it’s spiritual value.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/appendix-3-discourse-circa-4-july-1838/1#historical-intro

I did find a reference to the SS in BYU Speeches where Pres Oaks says it was a mistake (even if he is overly gentle imo when he did so).

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/dallin-h-oaks/sins-mistakes/. 

It would seem there is only interest in the historical aspect of the orations, no one is seeing them as scripture now and my guess is few, if any, saw them in that way in the past.

The purpose of scripture is to help us understand the ways of God better, to bring us to him. Neither of these speeches come close to that imo. 

Ok. Yet Joseph Smith followed Rigdon on the stand and commended him for his talk. If Joseph Smith had give the talk I think you might have a different talk on it. Rigdon's Salt Sermon had a huge impact on LDS history - Scripture or not! It changed the whole course of the outcome of the Missouri episode. Thanks. I am not debating you, just adding a bit more context.

[rodheadlee]

Some people want to go in by the side door not the front door. Just an observation. 

[InCognitus]

10 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Some people want to go in by the side door not the front door. Just an observation. 

The "same is a thief and a robber" (John 10:1-6)

[Tacenda]

11 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I don’t agree with everything that they say. I feel like they have gained the following and now they have to dig to find things to complain about. Be sure to think for yourself, take what works, and use discernible thought for the rest. Advice, for what it’s worth.

Agree, they are bound to run out of things and then it's reaching.