7 Reasons Why Mormonism and Christianity Are Not the Same

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I once had a bishop give what could only be called a pulpit pounding sermon about wayward children and the responsibility of parents to ensure that it never happened, and it almost broke me. 

How awful.  

[Navidad]

4 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

If I se myself as better than you, but I don’t realize that I see it that way, we reach an impasse.  I’m sorry. 
 

I have interacted with folks of other religions who seem to believe they are going to heaven and I’m not.  I’ve interacted with people of my own religion who think they are going to be exalted and I am not, and also those who think I am and they are not.  None of those relationships are any fun.  
 

Regardless of what my membership has you believing about what I think about you, I’ll tell you that I don’t know where you’re bound.  I have suspicions of my fate.  I’m pretty sure you’re safe with me. 

OK. Sounds like we have a lot in common. If I am safe with you, that is plenty good enough for me. Thank you. In the midst of other Christians, we are supposed to be safe. However, that is no longer one of my beliefs. I lost that belief back in the early 80s, long before I had ever met a member of the LDS church. I would rather be someone who helps people feel safe than go to the highest level of anyone's heaven. I would also like some day to find a church home where I could feel safe, just as I am.

[MustardSeed]

1 minute ago, Navidad said:

OK. Sounds like we have a lot in common. If I am safe with you, that is plenty good enough for me. Thank you. In the midst of other Christians, we are supposed to be safe. However, that is no longer one of my beliefs. I lost that belief back in the early 80s, long before I had ever met a member of the LDS church. I would rather be someone who helps people feel safe than go to the highest level of anyone's heaven. I would also like some day to find a church home where I could feel safe, just as I am.

I need that too.  Without safety, what’s the point. 

[InCognitus]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Most of his teachings, some that were not written down, but were shared only in person were likely lost.  Possibly some teachings written down were lost as well or misunderstood when it came time to write them down.

I suspect some teachings that were written down didn't get transmitted (copied by others) the same way as other writings, and consequently they didn't make it into the canon of scripture either because they were obscure, or too sacred, or perhaps even controversial in some eyes.  

This week's Come Follow Me lesson on Luke 22 reminded me of Lincoln H. Blumell's paper:  Luke 22:43–44: An Anti-Docetic Interpolation or an Apologetic Omission?

Some early manuscripts of Luke don't include verses 43-44 of Luke 22, and the whole discussion on whether Luke 22:43-44 was intentionally interpolated in or excised from the gospel of Luke is fascinating to me, because it gives us a glimpse into the pressures of Christian apologetics in that period of early Christianity that can't be dismissed easily.  In his paper Blumell makes a convincing case for why the two verses were removed from the gospel of Luke by "orthodox" Christians for apologetic reasons, and explains why this is a better explanation for the omission of these verses in some manuscripts compared to the anti-docetic interpolation theory which is used by other scholars to explain their addition into the text.  

But no matter which side you take on this textual variant, it is solid proof that there were Christians in this era that felt pressured enough by the anti-Christian attacks of the philosophers and perceived heretics to make changes to their own scripture for the sake of bolstering their position in one way or another.  But I also believe that the hand of God was in play in this to some degree to make sure the important verses, like these two, were preserved (I thank God for that). 

Ironically, some of the earliest Christians (like Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 71-74) lamented about the Jews doing the same thing to Old Testament scripture, because the Christians used of some of the texts to establish Jesus as the Christ. 

[MustardSeed]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How awful.  

Thank you, validation is comforting ❤️

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Thank you, validation is comforting ❤️

The worst talk I ever had to sit through was given at the MTC in a "sisters only meeting" about how awful all of our clothing was and how we were all apostate for wearing them.  It was demeaning and I've never felt so judged in my entire life.  I'm still very insulted about it now, 20 some years later.  

Leaders can really do some harm.

I'd love to have had a conversation with that bishop about how God, a perfect parent, managed to lose 1/3 of His children.  I'm gleeful imagining the look on his face.... (because I'm a horrible person like that).

[Navidad]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

In regards to the bolded above, do you believe it (the bolded) is the superior way to believe?  That it's better a way to view Christ and the gospel than the way that I view it?

No, I don't think it is superior at all. I believe it is accurate in describing you as a full and complete Christian. It is not a way I view Christ or the gospel. As a complete Christian is how I view you. When I said "you" I was using the second person singular." I have read your posts, your kindness, and your manifestation of the spirit in your posts. I have read your kindness and patience with me over and over again for almost six years - since the first week. I don't think all members or the LDS church, or the Mennonite church are Christians. I wouldn't define that as a belief based on my doctrine. I would define it as a lived reality. It has nothing to do with doctrine, but with observation and personal experience with individuals. 

Having said all that, I confess that I believe that ranking, generalizing, normalizing, and dehumanizing are not means to unity in Christianity or anywhere else. If there ever was original sin in humans, I believe those four "take the cake."

Edited June 13, 2023 by Navidad

[Navidad]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Leaders can really do some harm.

Amen!

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I think you believe I am an "other" and as such am not the same as you, especially in God's eyes.

I think of my husband and daughter who live with me as “an other”.  Everyone on this board is an other to me, no matter how much we share some beliefs. The last “I belong here” tie was cut when I found out my sisters had made choices which were the opposite of what I expected and I realized that I had no real understanding of anyone in the world and no one had that understanding of me.  Except God.  I decided that would be enough for me.

I have never not felt an “other” in some way in every relationship. If you have found a group or even a person that you don’t feel that way with, you are blessed.

In God’s eyes is the only way I don’t feel “other” nor see anyone else that way too.  We are all on the same path as far as I am concerned, each with our own strengths and differences.  No one can tell where the others are on that path in relation to God.  Only God knows.

You are not other to me in God’s eyes.  Why would I think otherwise given Acts 10?
 

Quote

34 ¶ Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

We teach every person is a child of God.  It is drummed into us in Primary.  Song most sung in my Primary days was “I am a Child of God”.  Btw, I believe it was Pres. Kimball who instructed that one of the lines needed to be changed from “teach me all that I must know” to “teach me all that I must do”…

First lesson received in Primary:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/behold-your-little-ones-nursery-manual/lesson-1-i-am-a-child-of-god?lang=eng
 

Quote

Each of us is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents. We lived with them before we were born. Our Heavenly Father knows us personally and loves us. (See Psalm 82:6; Acts 17:28–29; Hebrews 12:9.)…

Show the picture on page 10, point to a child in the picture, and ask, “Is this person a child of God?” Nod and say yes. Repeat for each child in the picture. Then point to yourself and ask, “Am I a child of God?” Nod and say yes. Emphasize that everyone is a child of God and He knows and loves us all.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/music/library/childrens-songbook/i-am-a-child-of-god?lang=eng

Who in their right mind would look down on a child of God?

Edited June 13, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

That is one reason I just stare in amazement when my LDS friends assure me I can't possible have any covenants that I renew at the sacrament table.

I don’t believe that.  You may not be renewing the same covenants we have made, but doesn’t mean you haven’t made any and if you believe you renew them through the sacrament, of course you renew them.

Have they actually explicitly said no covenants whatsoever?  That is sad if so to limit God’s ability to make covenants with those who seek him in such a way.

Let’s see if I can make what I meant clearer…I probably should be sure we understand covenant making the same way.

Did you not make the covenant with God out of choice, because you wanted to?

Edited June 13, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

It is far more important for me to have faith and trust in Christ and to manifest that by manifesting the fruits of the Spirit, than it is to have correct beliefs or certainty about them.

Why do you think it is different for us?  The first principle of the gospel is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.  If you notice here in a basic lesson, there is no mention about correct beliefs being more important than faith and trust in Christ?  I honestly don’t understand why you seem to think certainty about our beliefs is of prime or near prime importance (maybe the habit of saying “I know” in testimony meetings?).  
 

I don’t even know where to begin to address the idea that certainty of correct beliefs is so important given we are more orthopraxis oriented in my view (performing ordinances are part of the “correct practice”, but so are keeping the Sabbath holy, acts of charity and love, honesty, seeking the gifts of the Spirit and then using them for good).

Quote

The fourth article of faith talks about four important principles and ordinances of the gospel you need to follow so you can live with Heavenly Father again.

First, you need to have faith in Jesus Christ. To have faith in Jesus Christ is to believe that He lives, that He is the Savior, and that He loves you, even though you have never seen Him. When you have faith in Christ, you will want to do what He has asked you to do, such as pray, attend church, be kind, and keep the commandments.

One important thing Jesus has asked you to do is be baptized when you are eight years old (or older). You will be baptized by immersion—as Jesus was. That means your whole body will go under the water. Your baptism will be done by someone who has the priesthood authority to baptize. When you are baptized, you also make a promise with Heavenly Father. You promise that you will keep the commandments, and if you do, He promises that you will have the companionship of the Holy Ghost.

After you are baptized, you will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Someone who holds the priesthood will put his hands on your head to give you the gift of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost will guide, teach, and comfort you and will testify of Jesus Christ.

From the day you were born until age eight, you are clean and innocent because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. After you turn eight and are baptized, you need to repent of anything you do wrong. To repent is to feel sorry and to ask for forgiveness from Heavenly Father and from anyone you may have hurt. After you have repented, you need to try hard not to make the same mistake again and to be more obedient to the commandments. The Atonement makes it possible for you to become clean again if you repent.

Having faith in Jesus Christ, repenting, being baptized by immersion, and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost are important because they will help you return to live with your family forever and with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/friend/2011/06/the-first-principles-and-ordinances-of-the-gospel-make-it-possible-for-me-to-live-with-god-again?lang=eng

We believe that God judges people by the laws he has given them and not by the laws he doesn’t.  Therefore whether or not you have a certain set of correct beliefs is much less important in the Church’s doctrine than what you do with the correct beliefs you have, no matter how many, no matter how few.

From the earliest days of the modern church, this is how it has been taught people will be judged, not by whether they have the right beliefs or not.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-brigham-young/chapter-39?lang=eng

Quote

It has appeared to me, from my childhood to this day, as a piece of complete nonsense, to talk about the inhabitants of the earth being thus irretrievably lost—to talk of my father and mother, and yours, or our ancestors, who have lived faithfully according to the best light they had; but because they had not the everlasting covenant and the holy Priesthood in their midst, that they should go to hell and roast there to all eternity. It is nonsense to me; it always was, and is yet (DBY,384).

A man or woman must know the ways of God before they can become ungodly. Persons may be sinners, may be unrighteous, may be wicked, who have never heard the plan of salvation, who are even unacquainted with the history of the Son of Man, or who have heard of the name of the Savior, and, perhaps, the history of his life while on the earth, but have been taught unbelief through their tradition and education; but to be ungodly, in the strict sense of the word, they must measurably understand godliness (DBY, 384).

So far as mortality is concerned, millions of the inhabitants of the earth live according to the best light they have—according to the best knowledge they possess. I have told you frequently that they will receive according to their works; and all, who live according to the best principles in their possession, or that they can understand, will receive peace, glory, comfort, joy and a crown that will be far beyond what they are anticipating. They will not be lost (DBY, 384).

If [people] have a law, no matter who made it, and do the best they know how, they will have a glory which is beyond your imagination, by any description I might give; you cannot conceive of the least portion of the glory of God prepared for his beings, the workmanship of his hands (DBY, 385).

I say to every priest on the face of the earth, I do not care whether they be Christian, Pagan or [Muslim], you should live according to the best light you have; and if you do you will receive all the glory you ever anticipated (DBY, 384–85).

If we as a people think it so important to have correct beliefs, we are going about it the wrong way calling our neighbours as our Gospel Doctrine teachers with no training in actual doctrine required.

 

Edited June 13, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

How awful.  

They were not that uncommon when I was a youth and in my 20s(early 80’s), unfortunately.   Thankfully much less common now.

Edited June 13, 2023 by Calm

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

How many fellow believers in Christ who are not or never were members of the LDS church do you know who have the correct priesthood authority? I am asking because I am making the assumption you don't know John the Beloved or the 3 living Nephites. But if you do, then how many besides them do you know? From which non-LDS Christian group do they come? How were they able to prove to you "who they are" regarding their claims to the priesthood? How would I prove my own ministerial priesthood to you? What kind of proof would suffice? Sorry for all the questions. Best wishes.
 

You would need to show that you were given the authority by laying on of hands by someone who received the authority and that the person who did the laying on of hands was authorized by someone.  And then you'd need to show that those people also received the authority in the same way and so on until you reached Christ.

I don't know of anyone as most Christians that I speak with have the same belief in authority as you mentioned.  They believe that it is given to them through the Holy Ghost so they don't worry about receiving it through laying on of hands.

And with the revelation about the "Great Apostasy", it means that anyone who has the authority now must have received it from a resurrected being (such as Peter, James and John) or translated being (not sure if you know this terminology but John the Beloved and the 3 Nephites are considered "translated").

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

The worst talk I ever had to sit through was given at the MTC in a "sisters only meeting" about how awful all of our clothing was and how we were all apostate for wearing them.  It was demeaning and I've never felt so judged in my entire life.  I'm still very insulted about it now, 20 some years later.  

Leaders can really do some harm.

I'd love to have had a conversation with that bishop about how God, a perfect parent, managed to lose 1/3 of His children.  I'm gleeful imagining the look on his face.... (because I'm a horrible person like that).

What in the world?  Hadn’t everyone chosen to bring clothing based on what the Church required?  That is absurd to think you were all there in violation of the missionary code.

You must have been sitting there in backless dresses and crop tops with hot pants on (do they still can short shorts “hot pants”?)  instead of dresses and skirts, etc.  There was something seriously wrong with that person.  

[Tacenda]

I don't believe that only certain faiths have the only authority, unless someone can prove me wrong, but I also don't believe all scripture is from God or our maker. So there's absolutely no way to know for a fact, just through faith, and I can't rely on someone's faith nor my own. 

[Stormin' Mormon]

The LDS may claim exclusive priesthood authority, it is true, but we also open up the definition of "scripture" such that anybody anywhere at any time may be inspired to write scripture.

Consider 2 Nephi 29:11-12, and Doctrine & Covenants 68:4.

I don't think you can pigeonhole the LDS paradigm into a single point along the inclusive-exclusive continuum. We're just weird like that.

 

edited to add the scriptures in question: 

First from 2nd Nephi:

 

Quote

 

11 For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written.

12 For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it.

 

And then from the 68th Section of the Doctrine and Covenants: 

Quote

4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of god unto salvation. 

 

Edited June 13, 2023 by Stormin' Mormon

[Navidad]

10 hours ago, InCognitus said:

But I also believe that the hand of God was in play in this to some degree to make sure the important verses, like these two, were preserved (I thank God for that). 

I believe that as well, to a large degree.

[Navidad]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

I don’t believe that.  You may not be renewing the same covenants we have made, but doesn’t mean you haven’t made any and if you believe you renew them through the sacrament, of course you renew them.

Have they actually explicitly said no covenants whatsoever?  That is sad if so to limit God’s ability to make covenants with those who seek him in such a way.

Let’s see if I can make what I meant clearer…I probably should be sure we understand covenant making the same way.

Did you not make the covenant with God out of choice, because you wanted to?

Yes, explicitly, including one person adding that he thinks I am pretending during the sacrament. I made my covenants with God and with my wife out of choice, because I wanted to. As a boy, I took the boy scout oath every week. That is long gone. As a superintendent of schools I took an oath to defend the constitution, if I remember right of both the state and the nation. Both of those are now long gone. My covenants to my wife and God are forever kinds of things in my mind. BTW, this has nothing to do with anything, but I never once found a conflict between being a public school superintendent and an Evangelical. Besides my dissertation, I am trying to do a lot of writing about unity in the faith and in the public schools (two completely different types of unity, but interestingly similar). Best wishes for a great day!

Edited June 13, 2023 by Navidad

[Saint Bonaventure]

As I've re-read this thread, I can clearly see the "defining Christianity down" I mentioned being described by several others, but with different words. I also see many Latter-day Saints saying, "Yes, those of you who aren't LDS can be Christians, and you will also need LDS ordinances in order to receive exaltation."

It's the, "and you will also need" that sticks in the craw and that comes across as "defining Christianity down." It comes across as, "You have some of the necessary stuff that we have, so we can all call ourselves Christians, but we have all the necessary stuff, so unless you join us, you will come up short of exaltation. You may be Christians, but without the baptism and other authoritative sacraments of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you will get the silver or the bronze. No gold for you!"

It's also the "and you will also need" that sticks in the craw of Latter-day Saints and that comes across as "defining the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints down." I read you all describing common beliefs, and see me and others saying, "well yes, but here's why you're still not allowed in the treehouse." "Here's why your baptism doesn't count." "Here's why you're still not Christians."   

Calm, and maybe one or two others indicated that we may all be in for surprises, and that what God has for all of us will go beyond any earthly religious structure and its requirements. I like that approach. The Catechism alludes to that when it indicates that God is not bound in the way that the Catholic Church is bound. At the same time, that approach doesn't lessen that well-intentioned folks on all sides are drawing the churchy lines in good conscience, and that line-drawing can be necessary, even when painful. I can't attend my niece's wedding in the LDS Temple, I just can't. I can sit in the foyer.

Firebreathers are found across groups, and by that I mean, there are people of basically every persuasion--religious, agnostic, atheistic--who rejoice in defining others down. I've read quotes from around the time of the Council of Trent that aren't charitable to either Catholics or Protestants. I've read quotes from Catholics that are highly critical of Latter-day Saints. I've read quotes from Latter-day Saint leaders that are highly critical of Christians generally and of Catholics specifically. If we go digging for quotes from firebreathers, we can all find them. Let's not do that.

Being curious and respectful seems to me to be a better approach. We shouldn't pretend that important, even vital differences don't exist. But at the same time, we should communicate our love of God and of neighbor. In that spirit, I'm trying to adapt to the fact that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints feel persecution strongly, and that those feelings and history are fresh and raw. I'm not trying to make you all feel worse; I'm trying to help you feel better.

And I feel that coming my way from many of you too.

 

Edited June 13, 2023 by Saint Bonaventure

[Navidad]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Why do you think it is different for us?  The first principle of the gospel is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.  If you notice here in a basic lesson, there is no mention about correct beliefs being more important than faith and trust in Christ?  I honestly don’t understand why you seem to think certainty about our beliefs is of prime or near prime importance (maybe the habit of saying “I know” in testimony meetings?).  
 

I don’t even know where to begin to address the idea that certainty of correct beliefs is so important given we are more orthopraxis oriented in my view (performing ordinances are part of the “correct practice”, but so are keeping the Sabbath holy, acts of charity and love, honesty, seeking the gifts of the Spirit and then using them for good).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/friend/2011/06/the-first-principles-and-ordinances-of-the-gospel-make-it-possible-for-me-to-live-with-god-again?lang=eng

We believe that God judges people by the laws he has given them and not by the laws he doesn’t.  Therefore whether or not you have a certain set of correct beliefs is much less important in the Church’s doctrine than what you do with the correct beliefs you have, no matter how many, no matter how few.

From the earliest days of the modern church, this is how it has been taught people will be judged, not by whether they have the right beliefs or not.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-brigham-young/chapter-39?lang=eng

If we as a people think it so important to have correct beliefs, we are going about it the wrong way calling our neighbours as our Gospel Doctrine teachers with no training in actual doctrine required.

 

I woke up this morning thinking about the shift in my thinking of the LDS as primarily focusing on being orthopraxic (is that a word?) than being orthodox. I think you all drilled that into me here on the forum. I never had a problem with that. I basically agreed with that. As I have said here before, my favorite Christian book is "The Sin of Certainty" by Peter Enns.

Then, something started changing. As long as we were the Mennonite investigators, we were a curiosity, a source of pride for the ward, a hope for two converts in a place where converts are extremely rare. Then over the years it seemed to become clear that we were not investigators, (in an LDS sense) but people who wanted to worship, fellowship,and minister, as we were. In my thinking, that started the discomfort and uncertainty from the members towards us. Over time, we sensed a concern that we were a threat to the truth of the Moroni test, the uniqueness of the LDS gospel, and perhaps even in some way, its truth. If we were perceived by many as Godly, spiritually minded outsiders, others perceived us as a threat to the gospel. Not an active threat - they didn't hide their children, but an exception in a faith where exceptions are, at times not tolerated. The idea that we wanted to be faithful non-Members was like looking through a broken kaleidoscope. Then our long-term, wonderfully supportive bishop moved away. His father-in-law, a general authority emeritus passed away. Two loving Godly men out of our lives and out of our ward.

Slowly over time things changed and we were made to feel, in several tangible ways as less and less than. The orthopraxic became orthodoxy, and we weren't. Ministry opportunities for both of us shrank and virtually (pun intended) disappeared. So now we have disappeared. Maybe they are more comfortable now. Maybe we are more comfortable now. It was a great five year journey. I have a slogan for my life, I have it written in my books, plaques, and staring at me on my desk (including when I was a superintendent) as I write this. "The Joys of the Journey into the Unknown are the Unknown Joys of the Journey." I wrote that 20 years ago.

Our journey into the LDS church is probably over. It was indeed a journey into the unknown.  My journey into the study of Mormonism is not over, but is becoming like many other non-LDS scholars before me, simply an academic exercise in religious history and doctrine. . . The hope for unity is gone. That is a loss. I am struggling with that loss, but perhaps a bit less each week. My wife has found wonderful pastors to listen to online almost every morning. I am deeply involved in my writing and speaking. Oh, and I still have this forum! Rocky, stormy, kind, and reassuring - I still enjoy it here.

This morning I woke up determined to remember our journey into Zion by focusing on Waldo P. Call - one of the Godliest men I have ever had the privilege of knowing, and by focusing on our kind and wise bishop, whose name isn't important in this context. I will forever smile when he and his wife visit here, back home in the colonies and I see his white Nissan pull in front of our house. Their visits are a joy. There is more I could say, but that would betray confidences and I can't do that.

Gotta get back to 1930's religious, agrarian, and ideological conflicts in Chihuahua! Yesterday, my committee advanced me to the last stage of candidacy prior to my Viva (I think a British term) or oral defense. Perhaps at 74 years of age, that life long journey will be over! Best wishes. . .

Edited June 13, 2023 by Navidad

[Nevo]

Parley P. Pratt was a bit of a "firebreather," but I think he was right when he said: "A man must be very inconsistent, to come with a message from God, and then, tell the people that they can be saved just as well without, as with it." The New Testament does a good deal of line-drawing. The Jesus of the Gospels doesn't give off much of an "I'm OK – You're OK" vibe; he's actually pretty strict about correct beliefs and behavior and seems to think that something is really at stake.

 

[Navidad]

37 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

As I've re-read this thread, I can clearly see the "defining Christianity down" I mentioned being described by several others, but with different words. I also see many Latter-day Saints saying, "Yes, those of you who aren't LDS can be Christians, and you will also need LDS ordinances in order to receive exaltation."

It's the, "and you will also need" that sticks in the craw and that comes across as "defining Christianity down." It comes across as, "You have some of the necessary stuff that we have, so we can all call ourselves Christians, but we have all the necessary stuff, so unless you join us, you will come up short of exaltation. You may be Christians, but without the baptism and other authoritative sacraments of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you will get the silver or the bronze. No gold for you!"

It's also the "and you will also need" that sticks in the craw of Latter-day Saints and that comes across as "defining the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints down." I read you all describing common beliefs, and see me and others saying, "well yes, but here's why you're still not allowed in the treehouse." "Here's why your baptism doesn't count." "Here's why you're still not Christians."   

Calm, and maybe one or two others indicated that we may all be in for surprises, and that what God has for all of us will go beyond any earthly religious structure and its requirements. I like that approach. The Catechism alludes to that when it indicates that God is not bound in the way that the Catholic Church is bound. At the same time, that approach doesn't lessen that well-intentioned folks on all sides are drawing the churchy lines in good conscience, and that line-drawing can be necessary, even when painful. I can't attend my niece's wedding in the LDS Temple, I just can't. I can sit in the foyer.

Firebreathers are found across groups, and by that I mean, there are people of basically every persuasion--religious, agnostic, atheistic--who rejoice in defining others down. I've read quotes from around the time of the Council of Trent that aren't charitable to either Catholics or Protestants. I've read quotes from Catholics that are highly critical of Latter-day Saints. I've read quotes from Latter-day Saint leaders that are highly critical of Christians generally and of Catholics specifically. If we go digging for quotes from firebreathers, we can all find them. Let's not do that.

Being curious and respectful seems to me to be a better approach. We shouldn't pretend that important, even vital differences don't exist. But at the same time, we should communicate our love of God and of neighbor. In that spirit, I'm trying to adapt to the fact that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints feel persecution strongly, and that those feelings and history are fresh and raw. I'm not trying to make you all feel worse; I'm trying to help you feel better.

And I feel that coming my way from many of you too.

 

What a great post. I want to study more about God not being bound in the way a church is. I think that is a great concept. Your concept of firebreathers is spot on. Even Hopi priests came here to Paquime (a world heritage site) about twenty minutes from my house. When they found the locals living in sin and unwilling to repent, one of them turned into a fire breathing dragon who swooped down on the community and burned it up! That was the end of Paquime as a community! You can come and still see the burn marks on the adobe.

Seriously, a great post. The soul wounds in the Saints are significant. Very similarly to Mennonites, they have established a cultural identity that includes persecution as a sign of righteousness. The Mennonites took it even a step farther and wrote a 1000 page book about their persecutions. Well done!
 

[Tacenda]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

They were not that uncommon when I was a youth and in my 20s(early 80’s), unfortunately.   Thankfully much less common now.

I remember the shame I felt when in Young Women's volleyball I wore a sleeveless shirt and I was sent home right in the middle of a game to go home and change. It wasn't even a tank top. But boys can wear whatever they wanted. I didn't get the memo I guess or something, don't think I was doing it on purpose. Just a dumb Beehive or Mia Maid I guess. If that's what I was in the 70's.

Edited June 13, 2023 by Tacenda

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

It is what the church teaches though. I even provided references to support it.

Did you?  I must have missed it.

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

You can start a new thread if you’d like, but you’d need to stick to what the church has taught in the last couple of decades, with an emphasis on what it is teaching now. What it taught a hundred years ago but doesn’t teach anymore, isn’t relevant.

No I do not need to stick to what the church has taught the past few decades.  See this it what apologists do.  They want to toss under the bus what past leaders,  who were allegedly prophets that God directed.  You cannot do that. You have to own what the church has taught.  If you want to toss them under the bus then what good are prophets and apostles?  What might be tossed under the bus that current leaders teach now maybe 20 or 30 years down the road.  Such a convenient approach to the so called truth.  But I get it.  It is tough to own the garbage prior LDS leaders have taught. If I cannot trust past teachings by LDS leaders why should I trust them now?  Your post is a great example as to why I do not trust them.  Thank you for the reaffirmation.

 

Edited June 13, 2023 by Teancum

[Stormin' Mormon]

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

 If you want to toss them under the bus then what good are prophets and apostles. 

That's the POINT of prophets and apostles.  Otherwise, we wouldn't have needed any MORE prophets and apostles after the first few.