7 Reasons Why Mormonism and Christianity Are Not the Same

[Teancum]

13 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

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

 

If the current leaders contradict prior leaders they all are useless.  Now receiving new revelation and doctrine that does not contradict past leaders, that could be a good thing.  But what we see here is an attempt to run away from past teachings. You cannot do that. Own it.

Edited June 13, 2023 by Teancum

[Stormin' Mormon]

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If the current leaders contradict prior leaders they all are useless.  Now receiving new revelation and doctrine that does not contradict past leaders, that could be a good thing.  But what we see here is an attempt to run away from past teachings. You cannot do that. Own it.

I don't need to own it.  I live in a different time, place, and cultural context, and so I am entitled to prophetic guidance for my particular time, place, and cultural context.  

I don't need to gather to Utah, as Brigham Young taught, because later prophets contradicted him, and said I can build Zion where I currently live.  I don't need to circumcise my sons, because Peter contradicted Abraham and Moses and said I don't have to do that.  I don't have to drink wine with the sacrament, because Joseph Smith contradicted Peter and Paul, and said that water was just fine.  

Contextualizing past teachings is not running from them.  Current leaders, teaching in a way that resonates with hearts seeped in 21st century culture, are not useless.  I own my faith in Christ.  

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Yes, explicitly, including one person adding that he thinks I am pretending during the sacrament.

His stated opinion is way out of line and I invite you to hand it back, not absorb his opinion.  Opinions like that are just information about the speaker, end of story. 

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, Navidad said:

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."

So you believe that your beliefs are equal to my beliefs (and not superior to my beliefs in any way) even though you’ve described my beliefs as arrogant and divisive?

Can you explain how that works? 

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

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.  

I think the worst part was that yes, we were at the MTC. The clothes we had were the clothes that we had to wear. There was no place to buy more clothes! And it’s not like everyone could afford to write to their parents and ask them to buy more clothes to send them. When I served, we were poor! I was lucky I had the clothes that I had, there was no getting new clothes. And of course the clothes were all modest, and covered garments, etc. Their issue was that they were too trendy and cute basically. We looked like “Polly on a picnic“. And not Missionaries. Notwithstanding that everybody’s mission president sent them different standards for what was acceptable in their mission. The sisters I roomed with we’re going to Connecticut and I’ll head to have dark kneelength skirt and button up shirts. I was serving in Northern California . We were allowed to wear jean skirts!

I’m obviously still angry about it today.  They didn’t make me feel bad during the talk—I knew that there was nothing wrong with my clothing and they weren’t going to be able to say anything that was going to make me question that. if I don’t believe that something is true about myself then you can accuse me of it all day long and it’s not going to make an impact. But it will make me mad if I believe it’s unfair, and that’s what this talk did. It made me very very angry.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

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.

😡

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Did you?  I must have missed it.

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.

 

I think Stormin Mormon answered this post well and it doesn’t make sense to restate what he said, so I’ll let him speak for me.

(but I don’t think you “get it”.  I think you get “you” but that’s as far as your expertise goes. For some reason you’ve projected your views onto me but they are your words and your beliefs and your way of seeing things. Not anyone else’s. I don’t feel the need to refute them). 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

So you believe that your beliefs are equal to my beliefs (and not superior to my beliefs in any way) even though you’ve described my beliefs as arrogant and divisive?

Can you explain how that works? 

Hi bluebell: Arrogant and divisive? That doesn't sound like me. I just searched this whole thread and couldn't find those words used by me or anyone else. I did say the following, is this that to which you are referring?

Because of the way we rank the priority and necessity of certain beliefs and hold to those beliefs differently. My beliefs, other than in the atonement rank way down on my list of values and priorities in my Christian life. 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. Methinks Christ will never judge me for the correctness of my doctrine or belief, but for how I manifest His love, and the attributes of a Christian in my life.

I have said a hundred times on this forum I believe what I believe with provisional certainty. Beliefs change, doctrines change, I change, the Mennonite church changes, along with its doctrine, as has the LDS church since 10 years past its founding. So I don't hold your salvation hostage to either my beliefs or to those of my group, or to what the leaders of my church teach.

I 100% believe God accepts you just as you are as a believer in Him, which I know you to be. I think I have said that since my first week on the forum in 2017. Oh, and I never said I think you, bluebell believe yourself to be superior to me or anyone else. I believe you believe your church and its doctrine is superior to all other Christian churches in this dispensation. I think that is why your church does not, even now prioritize real and genuine unity with fellow Christians regardless of affiliation. I don't say that as a judgment. I believe it to be a fact. Interfaith events are not expressions of unity or oneness. I want to get into all this on another thread, but I am too tired to do so tonight. Thanks and best to you.

Which part of that is stating your beliefs are arrogant and divisive? I will try and be clear and not in denial . . . . I do believe you believe your church and its doctrine that it is superior to, or in another sense of the same root word, supersedes all other Christian churches in this dispensation. I own that belief. Your church teaches the following and this verse is quoted probably more than any other in the sacrament services I have attended:

And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually. D&C 1:30.

Prophets come and go in all churches since the beginning of the time of the church. Their beliefs are "contextualized" as someone just pointed out since the beginning of the time of the church. However, this verse has not been altered in however many years it has existed in your canon. You do believe it, don't you? It is what your church teaches, isn't it? I will restate what I said about priorities. I do think that because of this belief and this pivotal verse in your canon that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not "even now prioritize real and genuine unity with fellow Christians regardless of affiliation." "I don't say it as a judgment. I believe it to be a fact. Interfaith events are not expressions of unity or oneness." There are lots of churches that emphasize and prioritize unity in the body of Christ between groups. I pastored one. We were completely non-denominational in our outlook.

I do not believe your Church emphasizes that. Am I wrong? Does you church prioritize the teaching in John 17:21? -  “I pray not only for these, but also for those who believe in me through their word. 21May they all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us, so that the world may believe you sent me. 22I have given them the glory you have given me, so that they may be one as we are one. 23I am in them and you are in me, so that they may be made completely one, that the world may know you have sent me and have loved them as you have loved me."  That is a whole bunch of "ones."

How about I Cor 1:10? - "There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male and female; since you are all one in Christ Jesus." I don't think your church prioritizes that oneness in the body of Christ. Am I wrong? My priority is that we all treat each other as if indeed we are "all one in Christ Jesus." In Christ Jesus is the greatest place to be. Everything else is appendages! I apologize if I offended you. I think much to highly of you to do that on purpose.

Edited June 13, 2023 by Navidad

[Teancum]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think Stormin Mormon answered this post well and it doesn’t make sense to restate what he said, so I’ll let him speak for me.

(but I don’t think you “get it”.  I think you get “you” but that’s as far as your expertise goes. For some reason you’ve projected your views onto me but they are your words and your beliefs and your way of seeing things. Not anyone else’s. I don’t feel the need to refute them). 

I get it.  You need to ignore the past teachings of your leaders, you and @Stormin' Mormonneed to do this.  Otherwise your testimony may crumble.  But this approach is disingenuous IMO.  But that is just me. Maybe I was to literal and actually at one point believed what the so called prophets and apostles taught. Mormonism is no constant. It is a moving target and its doctrine is like trying to pin jello to the wall.

Carry in if that works for you.  It certainly does not for me.  And my guess is many past leaders would not recognize the Mormonism of today.  

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

I get it.  You need to ignore the past teachings of your leaders, you and @Stormin' Mormonneed to do this.  Otherwise your testimony may crumble.  But this approach is disingenuous IMO.  But that is just me. Maybe I was to literal and actually at one point believed what the so called prophets and apostles taught. Mormonism is no constant. It is a moving target and its doctrine is like trying to pin jello to the wall.

Carry in if that works for you.  It certainly does not for me.  And my guess is many past leaders would not recognize the Mormonism of today.  

I’m glad you’ve been able to move on and hopefully find some peace. My previous words still stand. I think you get you, but you don’t get me, despite repeatedly attempting to speak for me and others.

I wish you well wherever your faith journey takes you. It sounds like it’s been a rough journey. 

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

We believe that God has also promised us certain things, and by retaining our beliefs we are trusting in the fidelity of His word.  Why is your belief not a sign of your superiority, but our belief is?

It boils down to a lot of religious claims really does it not?  You say @Navidadis not at true follower of Christ if either in this life or the next he does not accept the gospel according to Mormonism.  He thinks he is quite fine and does not neem the gospel of Mormonism to be saved and with God the Father.

 

My guess is neither of you are correct and none of us know what comes after we die.  Likely we are just dead and that is it.

[Stormin' Mormon]

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I get it.  You need to ignore the past teachings of your leaders, you and @Stormin' Mormonneed to do this.  Otherwise your testimony may crumble.  But this approach is disingenuous IMO.  But that is just me. Maybe I was to literal and actually at one point believed what the so called prophets and apostles taught. Mormonism is no constant. It is a moving target and its doctrine is like trying to pin jello to the wall.

Carry in if that works for you.  It certainly does not for me.  And my guess is many past leaders would not recognize the Mormonism of today.  

Personally, I find great comfort in a paradigm that is flexible enough to meet me where I am.  My testimony of on-going revelation would indeed crumble if no on-going revelation could adapt past paradigms for the 21st century. I am grateful for a God who loves me enough to teach me as me, and not insist that I learn His ways as if I were a 19th century farmer living on the edge of subsistence in the arid deserts of the Western U.S.

That fluidity doesn't work for you, and I respect that.  But it is foundational to my faith, not just a jury-rigged mental exercise. 

[Tacenda]

9 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It boils down to a lot of religious claims really does it not?  You say @Navidadis not at true follower of Christ if either in this life or the next he does not accept the gospel according to Mormonism.  He thinks he is quite fine and does not neem the gospel of Mormonism to be saved and with God the Father.

 

My guess is neither of you are correct and none of us know what comes after we die.  Likely we are just dead and that is it.

Not the topic, but I need only look around at the teeny tiny insect alive and wonder how on earth we attribute that to the big bang, and what started the big bang. But I understand your feelings, I truly do. 

[bluebell]

44 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hi bluebell: Arrogant and divisive? That doesn't sound like me. I just searched this whole thread and couldn't find those words used by me or anyone else. I did say the following, is this that to which you are referring?

Because of the way we rank the priority and necessity of certain beliefs and hold to those beliefs differently. My beliefs, other than in the atonement rank way down on my list of values and priorities in my Christian life. 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. Methinks Christ will never judge me for the correctness of my doctrine or belief, but for how I manifest His love, and the attributes of a Christian in my life.

I have said a hundred times on this forum I believe what I believe with provisional certainty. Beliefs change, doctrines change, I change, the Mennonite church changes, along with its doctrine, as has the LDS church since 10 years past its founding. So I don't hold your salvation hostage to either my beliefs or to those of my group, or to what the leaders of my church teach.

I 100% believe God accepts you just as you are as a believer in Him, which I know you to be. I think I have said that since my first week on the forum in 2017. Oh, and I never said I think you, bluebell believe yourself to be superior to me or anyone else. I believe you believe your church and its doctrine is superior to all other Christian churches in this dispensation. I think that is why your church does not, even now prioritize real and genuine unity with fellow Christians regardless of affiliation. I don't say that as a judgment. I believe it to be a fact. Interfaith events are not expressions of unity or oneness. I want to get into all this on another thread, but I am too tired to do so tonight. Thanks and best to you.

Which part of that is stating your beliefs are arrogant and divisive? I will try and be clear and not in denial . . . . I do believe you believe your church and its doctrine that it is superior to, or in another sense of the same root word, supersedes all other Christian churches in this dispensation. I own that belief. Your church teaches the following and this verse is quoted probably more than any other in the sacrament services I have attended:

And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually. D&C 1:30.

Prophets come and go in all churches since the beginning of the time of the church. Their beliefs are "contextualized" as someone just pointed out since the beginning of the time of the church. However, this verse has not been altered in however many years it has existed in your canon. You do believe it, don't you? It is what your church teaches, isn't it? I will restate what I said about priorities. I do think that because of this belief and this pivotal verse in your canon that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not "even now prioritize real and genuine unity with fellow Christians regardless of affiliation." "I don't say it as a judgment. I believe it to be a fact. Interfaith events are not expressions of unity or oneness." There are lots of churches that emphasize and prioritize unity in the body of Christ between groups. I pastored one. We were completely non-denominational in our outlook.

I do not believe your Church emphasizes that. Am I wrong? Does you church prioritize the teaching in John 17:21? -  “I pray not only for these, but also for those who believe in me through their word. 21May they all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us, so that the world may believe you sent me. 22I have given them the glory you have given me, so that they may be one as we are one. 23I am in them and you are in me, so that they may be made completely one, that the world may know you have sent me and have loved them as you have loved me."  That is a whole bunch of "ones."

How about I Cor 1:10? - "There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male and female; since you are all one in Christ Jesus." I don't think your church prioritizes that oneness in the body of Christ. Am I wrong? My priority is that we all treat each other as if indeed we are "all one in Christ Jesus." In Christ Jesus is the greatest place to be. Everything else is appendages! I apologize if I offended you. I think much to highly of you to do that on purpose.

Sorry for the confusion.  You said that you believe my beliefs imply that members of my church are superior (or something to that effect).  And you said that my beliefs (as taught in my church) prioritize doctrine over unity with other Christians

So, now that we've gotten that straightened out, how can my beliefs be equal to yours and yet imply superiority and also disunity (which in my thinking is just another way to say "divisive") at the same time?  That's where I'm getting confused. 

Also, how can I keep my doctrine about the need for priesthood authority and help you feel unified with me?

Edited June 13, 2023 by bluebell

[Teancum]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I’m glad you’ve been able to move on and hopefully find some peace.

Thank you. It is very peaceful to realize that all religious claim are essentially bogus.  Nobody really knows any of this in spite of claimed "testimony."  You don't. Other believers here don't.  Others that believe in other faith systems that conflict with yours, that are just as sure they have a testimony of their faith don't as well.

 

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 

My previous words still stand.

Ok great.  You still need to toss your prior leaders as well as your scriptures under the bus.  But whatever works for you, go for it.

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 

I think you get you, but you don’t get me, despite repeatedly attempting to speak for me and others.

I wish you well wherever your faith journey takes you. It sounds like it’s been a rough journey. 

It has been a rough journey.  Thank you.

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You say @Navidadis not at true follower of Christ if either in this life or the next he does not accept the gospel according to Mormonism.  

Holy cow Teancum, are you missing some of my posts or are you doing this on purpose, because I've said repeatedly that Navidad IS a true follower of Christ.

[Teancum]

Just now, bluebell said:

Holy cow Teancum, are you missing some of my posts or are you doing this on purpose, because I've said repeatedly that Navidad IS a true follower of Christ.

No you said if he is a true follower of Christ he will at come point accept the gospel of Mormonism.  Sorry but that is what you aid many pages back oh this thread.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I don't need to own it.  I live in a different time, place, and cultural context, and so I am entitled to prophetic guidance for my particular time, place, and cultural context.  

Of course you don't.  If you did it would cause you all sorts of problems.

[bluebell]

Just now, Teancum said:

Thank you. It is very peaceful to realize that all religious claim are essentially bogus.  Nobody really knows any of this in spite of claimed "testimony."  You don't. Other believers here don't.  Others that believe in other faith systems that conflict with yours, that are just as sure they have a testimony of their faith don't as well.

 

Ok great.  You still need to toss your prior leaders as well as your scriptures under the bus.  But whatever works for you, go for it.

It has been a rough journey.  Thank you.

You rarely miss an opportunity to try to make me feel badly about what I believe so I assume it has been a really hard road.  I don't take it personally and I sincerely hope it gets better.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

No you said if he is a true follower of Christ he will at come point accept the gospel of Mormonism.  Sorry but that is what you aid many pages back oh this thread.

And I also said that if I am a true follower of Christ, and I learn after death that I need to accept Catholic authority, that I will accept it.  Did you take that to mean that I don't believe that I am a true follower of Christ right now?

[Teancum]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

You rarely miss an opportunity to try to make me feel badly about what I believe so I assume it has been a really hard road.  I don't take it personally and I sincerely hope it gets better.

I am not sure what your point is here.

Take care.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I am not sure what your point is here.

Take care.

You as well.

[MustardSeed]

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Sorry for the confusion.  You said that you believe my beliefs imply that members of my church are superior (or something to that effect).  And you said that my beliefs (as taught in my church) prioritize doctrine over unity with other Christians

So, now that we've gotten that straightened out, how can my beliefs be equal to yours and yet imply superiority and also disunity (which in my thinking is just another way to say "divisive") at the same time?  That's where I'm getting confused. 

Also, how can I keep my doctrine about the need for priesthood authority and help you feel unified with me?

Hi: Thanks for getting back to me. Let me try and clarify what I am saying. First, I believe every Christian church on earth today is an institution developed and honed under some inspiration of the Holy Spirit and under some human direction and leadership. Therefore they all have some Godly truth as well as human fallibilities and foibles.  Everyone . . . without exception. Mine, yours, and all those that aren't yours and mine. Each one has its own exceptional characteristics and beliefs, as well as those that reflect the humanness of their leaders, founders, teachers, etc. Each reflects different concepts of spirituality - some pietism, some orthodoxy, some fighting the world, some saving the lost, some humility, some the gifts of the spirit, some community, some their antiquity, some their newness, some their means of worship, some their fealty to the Bible, and on and on. All this gets mixed up then in a human institution that seeks God's will and direction at times and holds to its own wisdom, confidence, and surety at others.

I know of no any one church today that is superior to any other given the entire movie - not just a screen shot. Some, however, like yours, believes it to be unique a one-of-a-kind church. There are others as well. Pentecostal Oneness come to mind. Another church may specialize in a sense of superiority in terms of their approbation by God, closeness to the original NT church, accessibility to the gifts, the gift of evangelism, more pietistic, etc. Others believe they best reflect the original church - like the Antiochan Orthodox Church. I believe each church has its strengths and weaknesses. From a study of ecclesiology down through the centuries, it seems that churches can fit into certain categories of strengths and weaknesses. Who decides what is a strength and what is a weakness without judging? That of course is a challenge and one steps into this world of sacred anthropology/ecclesiology (the study of the church) with fear and trembling. There are people, however who study church characteristics (through texts, artifacts, structure, beliefs, etc.) and come to conclusions. They are ecclesiastical anthropologists.

Ok.  I am writing too much again. So the conclusions, with provision certitude that I offer is that all churches are flawed, all have strengths and weaknesses, and that none is consistently for the whole two hours of the movie more Godly or spiritual than any other. From the Pietistic to the Reformed, to the Restored, to the Catholic, to the Orthodox, the Pentecostal, the Primitive, and the high church, each has its flaws and strengths based on the human part of its construction. Therefore I do believe that for two quick examples, some imply superiority and some prioritize unity. Some avoid all other churches and are endogamous. Some have had money troubles, some are fighters, others have coveted and bad-mouthed others. They take on the humanness of their leaders and founders, and adopt doctrines that facilitate their particulates, along with those that come from the Spirit. 

Then there is the community of individual Christians that exist all over the Christian world right now in every church group. That is what I believe to be the church that Christ founded. It has no form or shape in this dispensation, but will at some time in the future. It had members in the Church of Ephesus, Laodecia, Corinth, Antioch, but was not the entirety of any of them. It will be the eternal church of Christ in the eternities and will be joined by many according to Christ's judgment  who get to the Father by Him. I don't know of many churches that intentionally promote disunity, but many promote isolationism and don't emphasize unity because of a desire to be separate from "the world," or those churches that don't have "the truth" as they do. I don't believe inferior or superiority play a role, but some churches certainly think so.

As far as your last question, that is much quicker. Aren't you glad? The key (no pun intended) to unity is being able to receive the beliefs of those who are not you. I didn't say accept or agree, or deny or denigrate. Receiving someone else's belief is respecting them and being able to consider them as potentially valid as are yours. That is the hard part for many. The more certain one is about their own beliefs, right down to the details of the rapture (as an example) the harder it is to receive the beliefs of others. Or many Christians of all groups believe that receiving someone else's beliefs as possible would be disloyal to their own group so they can't do it. Or someone believes that receiving someone else's beliefs might lead to pollution of your own, or your own possible migration, or or or. So we simply stay in our own swim lanes and become apologists, polemicists, for our own beliefs.

Or, if in power we develop doctrines that deny other's beliefs as being sinful, Satanic, for another generation, not consistent with our Scripture, too reformed, too orthodox, too like some other faith who your aunt had a bad experience in, or too something. When we can freely receive another's perspective, belief, or faith, we learn, we grow, and I believe we strengthen our own. Or we might even decide to migrate elsewhere in our own spiritual journey. That might be considered a terrible stumble or a joyful leap by others within our group, but it really is a decision for the individual. So, you and I can be united in spite of our differences if and when we can receive each other's beliefs without putting them down, being dismissive, considering them less than us, or finding some dogmatic or doctrinal reason to dismiss them. When any of those things is all we can do, then there will be no unity - just shallow interfaith stuff. Paul and Peter went through it about who should be evangelized before they worked it out.

Ok, I am done. thanks for reading and considering what I have said. I don't claim to be right. I claim to be one sincere Christian trying to learn all I can from all that I come across in my spiritual journey. Best.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Hi: Thanks for getting back to me. Let me try and clarify what I am saying. First, I believe every Christian church on earth today is an institution developed and honed under some inspiration of the Holy Spirit and under some human direction and leadership. Therefore they all have some Godly truth as well as human fallibilities and foibles.  Everyone . . . without exception. Mine, yours, and all those that aren't yours and mine. Each one has its own exceptional characteristics and beliefs, as well as those that reflect the humanness of their leaders, founders, teachers, etc. Each reflects different concepts of spirituality - some pietism, some orthodoxy, some fighting the world, some saving the lost, some humility, some the gifts of the spirit, some community, some their antiquity, some their newness, some their means of worship, some their fealty to the Bible, and on and on. All this gets mixed up then in a human institution that seeks God's will and direction at times and holds to its own wisdom, confidence, and surety at others.

I know of no any one church today that is superior to any other given the entire movie - not just a screen shot. Some, however, like yours, believes it to be unique a one-of-a-kind church. There are others as well. Pentecostal Oneness come to mind. Another church may specialize in a sense of superiority in terms of their approbation by God, closeness to the original NT church, accessibility to the gifts, the gift of evangelism, more pietistic, etc. Others believe they best reflect the original church - like the Antiochan Orthodox Church. I believe each church has its strengths and weaknesses. From a study of ecclesiology down through the centuries, it seems that churches can fit into certain categories of strengths and weaknesses. Who decides what is a strength and what is a weakness without judging? That of course is a challenge and one steps into this world of sacred anthropology/ecclesiology (the study of the church) with fear and trembling. There are people, however who study church characteristics (through texts, artifacts, structure, beliefs, etc.) and come to conclusions. They are ecclesiastical anthropologists.

Ok.  I am writing too much again. So the conclusions, with provision certitude that I offer is that all churches are flawed, all have strengths and weaknesses, and that none is consistently for the whole two hours of the movie more Godly or spiritual than any other. From the Pietistic to the Reformed, to the Restored, to the Catholic, to the Orthodox, the Pentecostal, the Primitive, and the high church, each has its flaws and strengths based on the human part of its construction. Therefore I do believe that for two quick examples, some imply superiority and some prioritize unity. Some avoid all other churches and are endogamous. Some have had money troubles, some are fighters, others have coveted and bad-mouthed others. They take on the humanness of their leaders and founders, and adopt doctrines that facilitate their particulates, along with those that come from the Spirit. 

Then there is the community of individual Christians that exist all over the Christian world right now in every church group. That is what I believe to be the church that Christ founded. It has no form or shape in this dispensation, but will at some time in the future. It had members in the Church of Ephesus, Laodecia, Corinth, Antioch, but was not the entirety of any of them. It will be the eternal church of Christ in the eternities and will be joined by many according to Christ's judgment  who get to the Father by Him. I don't know of many churches that intentionally promote disunity, but many promote isolationism and don't emphasize unity because of a desire to be separate from "the world," or those churches that don't have "the truth" as they do. I don't believe inferior or superiority play a role, but some churches certainly think so.

As far as your last question, that is much quicker. Aren't you glad? The key (no pun intended) to unity is being able to receive the beliefs of those who are not you. I didn't say accept or agree, or deny or denigrate. Receiving someone else's belief is respecting them and being able to consider them as potentially valid as are yours. That is the hard part for many. The more certain one is about their own beliefs, right down to the details of the rapture (as an example) the harder it is to receive the beliefs of others. Or many Christians of all groups believe that receiving someone else's beliefs as possible would be disloyal to their own group so they can't do it. Or someone believes that receiving someone else's beliefs might lead to pollution of your own, or your own possible migration, or or or. So we simply stay in our own swim lanes and become apologists, polemicists, for our own beliefs.

Or, if in power we develop doctrines that deny other's beliefs as being sinful, Satanic, for another generation, not consistent with our Scripture, too reformed, too orthodox, too like some other faith who your aunt had a bad experience in, or too something. When we can freely receive another's perspective, belief, or faith, we learn, we grow, and I believe we strengthen our own. Or we might even decide to migrate elsewhere in our own spiritual journey. That might be considered a terrible stumble or a joyful leap by others within our group, but it really is a decision for the individual. So, you and I can be united in spite of our differences if and when we can receive each other's beliefs without putting them down, being dismissive, considering them less than us, or finding some dogmatic or doctrinal reason to dismiss them. When any of those things is all we can do, then there will be no unity - just shallow interfaith stuff. Paul and Peter went through it about who should be evangelized before they worked it out.

Ok, I am done. thanks for reading and considering what I have said. I don't claim to be right. I claim to be one sincere Christian trying to learn all I can from all that I come across in my spiritual journey. Best.

Thank you for taking the time to write all of that, I really do appreciate it.

I think maybe part of my problem is that, in regards to my first question from the other post, I'm not speaking about churches.  I also agree that no church is perfect and all do some things well and others not so great.  My question was more about a specific belief.  How can one belief bring unity and the other dis-unity, but both be equally "good" (for lack of a better term)?

On to the second question I asked in the other post, how do we receive a belief that contradicts our beliefs?  For example, how would you personally receive the belief that we do not need a Savior to return to God, while maintaining your belief that we do need a Savior? 

Maybe if you can explain how that would look for you, I'll be able to understand how you need it to look (to feel unified) for Latter-day Saints.