7 Reasons Why Mormonism and Christianity Are Not the Same

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Navidad said:

I made my covenants with God and with my wife out of choice, because I wanted to.

Then if God brings you to a particular place out of fulfillment of a covenant you made with him, it is in the end because you want to be there even if from a previous point of view looking at it without the context of the covenant you might believe you didn’t want to be there.

An analogy…when I decided to get my bachelor’s degree by attending university, I made an agreement/non-sacred covenant with the university that I would take certain courses and do their class work so I could qualify for a degree.  Now it was not uncommon for me to sit taking a test thinking I don’t want to be here because I didn’t if I just looked at the moment in isolation.  But if I looked at it in context, that by being there and taking the test (and passing it) I was that much closer to my ultimate destination, I was eager to be there.  So at any time at university in classes if anyone asked me if I wanted to be there, the most accurate answer would be “yes, I am where I want to be”.  And even early in my schooling if I looked at the end of undergraduate university as undesirable as I then felt unprepared to be independent, have a decent job or unqualified for grad school, etc., I knew when that moment of graduation actually came, I would be also be content with where I was because I would have been prepared for the next step in my life (assuming my college was decent in getting its students qualified for a career).

You made a covenant with God for eternal life.  I am assuming this means you see yourself as putting yourself in God’s hands and willingly going through what he sends you even if in the moment you have a feeling “I don’t want to be here”….including once you reach the end of your covenant where God has fulfilled it all.  You will therefore be where you wanted to be when you made the covenant whether you really understood what that meant or not as well as well you want to be in that moment because you will be the new man that God has made of you through your covenant, correct?

Edited June 13, 2023 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

@NavidadI've been reading the last few pages on this thread but haven't had enough time to really jump in. It's been a bit of a busy week between mommy-ing a 4 year old, helping with tiling a bathroom, client work, and my side joy of painting. I also don't think I've directly addressed your posts here, but the thread has been on my mind none-the-less. I have a lot of scatter shot thoughts and I don't know if I can make them one cohesive post, but I'll try. 

First off, I'm sorry for the fall out you've experienced with your community down in the colonies. I've had some fall outs in recent years for differing reasons and they always hurt. It's particularly painful when you realize some of your differences can make maintaining a certain relationship untenable. Particularly when the differences for you likely feel or seem unimportant or overemphasized. I've had an experience like that, though not strictly on religious grounds, I don't think. The closest was when I lived in TX and experienced strains of christianity that were extremely divisive/demeaning. I think it may take some time to separate an attitude that hurt us and the religion itself. I know it did for me. Years really. I think I still have a gut reaction to certain varieties of christianity and certain statements. But it's definitely improved. I say that because parts of your story about the experiences you've had in your community remind me of what I've heard not in the church at large but in more smaller insular communities. I visited the colonies eons ago and was struck by the community's uniqueness. It's geographical isolation, small numbers, it's culture that stayed marginally touched by the larger country, and quite a unique historical background that likely took a lot of moral absolutism/certainty for their ancestors to do what they did. (You don't leave a country, establish a settlement, to follow God as you see it without a high level of certainty of what is right.) Though I know it has some amazing strengths that likely attracted you to the community to begin with, you may have inadvertently brushed against their heritage in your conflicting values/priorities. Even if it was simply by being you in not fully committing into the doctrines and subsequent practices expected in our faith. 

It's probably obvious to state that a small agrarian community in an isolated area of mexico is probably not fully representative of a larger worldwide faith consisting of millions. In my corner I've seen people from more insular communities or families that have taken certain practices or beliefs to such an extreme that I'm absolutely flabbergasted by them. They see these as "the church" but I, a lifelong member, can at times barely trace the line of reasoning's origin. Some of what you mentioned reminds me of that line of rigid reasoning I've seen from time to time.

 That said, I hold a few conflicting thoughts with what you've mentioned. I know that only-isms (beliefs that claim some form of distinction or group uniqueness) goes quite against your own beliefs and assertions. You associate it (not incorrectly, IMHO) to othering, a sense of superiority, etc. I've seen that behavior, both in and out of the church. But I don't think that's the full story. I'm definitely not one who shies fully away from certainty, I do believe in certain truth claims (i usually stay around 90-95% as opposed to 100% certain  ), my nature leans towards judging...and I strongly believe that is a divine trait first, a messy world-influenced one second. It's because of my judging nature that I know these traits can become imbalanced and lead to negative consequences. But I also know it's not the only possible outcome in either a group or individual basis. If it's balanced by other values, beliefs and practices it doesn't usually have those fall outs. For example I judge quite often for my job. Like a ton. It makes me a good therapist. I believe strongly in certain things and traits being essential for human health and relational strength. That judgment and certainty is grounded in love, a belief in people's innate goodness and capacties, desire to help them find a healing path, and a strong belief in agency/my limitations. This usually balances out the problems that can come from judgment and working with absolutes. 

The church also has two seemingly conflicting beliefs that generally works to balance out unhealthy tendencies. There is belief in essential ordinances, practices, and principles. There is a belief in a unique mission the church places. AND there is belief in that we are all part of one universal family. That we are all equally valued by God. That we'll all be growing and becoming long after we die. Etc. When beliefs or practices starts excessively othering people not of our faith, there's usually push back either locally or higher up. (ex. Talks in GC condemning ostracization, focus on trying to love those we disagree with, etc). While also asserting we maintain our beliefs and practices, particularly around priesthood authority and essential ordinances as things established by Christ through angelic and miraculous works on the earth. And it comes with unique beliefs and assumptions that are not universally shared or flat out contradicted in the larger christian world. To me there is a problem to unity if we diminish/deny something essential in order for us to get there. For the unity you describe, to some degree that would entail doing so to me. Yes, you don't view things I or the church see as essential as that significant, but most LDS would strongly disagree with you. And there would often be personal and poignant reasons for that. Our spiritual heritage and practices doesn't make sense without several of those things. 

That does mean there will be some degree of rift in interfaith relationships. And that is sad. I don't know how we can completely get around it, though I also think it's a temporal issue that will be fixed. My spiritual experiences have informed some of these beliefs to a degree that it would be extremely disingenuous for me to say that there isn't something important and necessary in priesthood, in temple work, in ordinances. We may not have the expression and understanding down pat. But perfection/inerrancy of ordinances, scripture, and manifestations of God was never a standard we officially subscribed to as LDS folk. And it's important for us as a faith community to practice these and develop them as God wants us to.* 

So the question is then, how do you both maintain certain fundamental things as fundamental....even if it conflicts with others views? And how do you continue to both do the work we feel called to that is specific as Latter-day Saints while also living in love and unity with those that do not agree with us to the best of our abilities? I don't know if there's one easy answer and I doubt I've perfected it even if there was. But we try, we keep trying, and we try again. And in that trying we change. And I think at its best, the practice and doctrines in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints ends up with us in a place of seeming contradiction: both as certain and seeker. Curious and careful. Love and unity oriented while maintain distinction and discernment. At least that is what I've found in my practice of my faith. I also think there's assumptions and values that you hold that may make it difficult to see how we reconcile that.     

 

*I should remphasize that I think your corner of the LDS community could learn a thing or two on making space for those different who'd still like to commune, from what you've described. That's something that can drastically vary from ward to ward and stake to stake. Some are really good at it. Others....not so much. 

also, I haven't read you're last post...I was writing this one and just noticed it. 

With luv,

BD 

 

Edited June 13, 2023 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

9 hours 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.

 

I just want to make sure I'm following you. I'm sincerely trying to understanding what it means to "define down." I'm a little confused by the phrase. What is it to you? I really hate entering into dialogue when I'm not exactly sure what's being said and this seems an important term to understand parts of your post. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

If we were perceived by many as Godly, spiritually minded outsiders, others perceived us as a threat to the gospel.

I think the important thing to remember in judging the Church by your experience is that it was determined by the individual makeup of your ward and its members and therefore unique to it, you shouldn’t generalize that the Church views you in a certain way based on how the ward as a whole or individually was responding to you at anytime during that 5 years.  My impression of the Church is it is more doctrinal that a strong Christian is evidence of Moroni’s promise because there is some growth of the seed that isn’t withering rather than a threat to that worldview.  It would be interesting to explore.

You are correct imo in your speculation that the shift in your interaction came in part due to a shift in viewing you as attending nonmembers instead of investigators.  In many ways roles are quite structured in the Church, though there is a lot of freedom of choice imo within the roles.  For nonmembers, the only roles that are well defined, imo, are investigator and nonmember spouse of a believing member (or believing nonmember as some may not get baptized if their spouse doesn’t want them to).  Maybe someone else will think of another, but those are the two roles I am familiar with.  Besides yourself, I remember only one other nonmember in my experience attending church on a regular basis and he eventually said his intent was to persuade members to change their beliefs.  But I have always lived where there are lots of other churches to attend.  Therefore if someone attended one of my wards or branches, it was most likely because it was the best fit of many faiths…therefore they would likely assume there was more truth to be learned and stick around.  Maybe they would discover there was actually more differences than they realized and leave to try again or just give up as not that important or find they accepted more of our faith’s practices and doctrine and eventually move from investigator to member through baptism.  There are likely very few places on earth where it is easy to attend an LDS branch while being difficult or at least inconvenient to attend another Christian faith….or three and therefore the person who attends an LDS ward because they feel fellowship with them, but not enough to be baptized in our faith is likely a very rare occurrence. At least rare enough it hasn’t made sense to create a role for them within our structure.  

You and your wife became “unknown variables” if there was a shift of perception and you were no longer seen as investigators….which likely means there was a lot of confusion.  How the confusion resolved was likely dependent on unique factors in your ward, such as the personality of the bishop at that time and any socially important individuals…those who often set the tone of a ward.  With no guidelines from church headquarters and no cultural experience providing suggestions on how the ward was to react, lots of possibilities could occur.  It is unfortunate your particular ward couldn’t find a workable solution where everyone was comfortable with you and your wife attending.  I suspect other wards would have had different reactions.  My current ward, my guess is they would treat you as open ended, perpetual investigators at least until the next bishop, but would have also followed from the beginning the rules on what investigators were allowed or wouldn’t be allowed to do where other wards might be more lax in what they did with investigators, but more structured or limited in how they viewed investigators.

[Saint Bonaventure]

12 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I just want to make sure I'm following you. I'm sincerely trying to understanding what it means to "define down." I'm a little confused by the phrase. What is it to you? I really hate entering into dialogue when I'm not exactly sure what's being said and this seems an important term to understand parts of your post. 

 

With luv,

BD

I appreciate the desire for clarity, and am glad for a conversation.

Briefly, what I mean by "defining down" is 1) What the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints puts forward seems to lack essential elements of the Christian faith, and 2) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seems to subordinate "Christian" to "Latter-day Saint." 

I want to emphasize that I'm considering the LDS Church institutionally, as did the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when it declined to accept LDS baptism. Individual Latter-day Saints have, in my experience, an astonishing variety of beliefs. That variety, and even as expressed on this board, is so wide that I think it's possible for a Latter-day Saint to swerve far enough from the LDS Church's institutional teachings to be somewhere in the pages of what C.S. Lewis described as "Mere Christianity."

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

 1) What the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints puts forward seems to lack essential elements of the Christian faith,

Which elements would those be?  Because your statement below can be even more accurately applied to the Christian faith than the LDS faith.  There is no "essential element" of Christianity that isn't rejected by some Christian faith somewhere.

Quote

Individual Latter-day Saints have, in my experience, an astonishing variety of beliefs. 

 

Edited June 14, 2023 by JLHPROF

[Tacenda]

@Navidad, not to down all of Utah, maybe part, I feel like your ward in Mexico, had a Utah ward mentality come upon them. For awhile I was thinking, wow, love how the ward in Mexico was treating you and attributed to being a whole 'nother world than here in my bubble in Utah. But sadly, looks to be the mentality crept up there too.

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Which elements would those be?  Because your statement below can be even more accurately applied to the Christian faith than the LDS faith.  There is no "essential element" of Christianity that isn't rejected by some Christian faith somewhere.

I don't think this is necessarily accurate

Edited June 14, 2023 by Teancum

[Saint Bonaventure]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Which elements would those be?  Because your statement below can be even more accurately applied to the Christian faith than the LDS faith.  There is no "essential element" of Christianity that isn't rejected by some Christian faith somewhere.

 

Thanks very much for responding.

Instead of me just jumping in and attempting to address what might be rejected by "some Christian faith somewhere"--which could be an immense undertaking--I need to ask a couple of questions of my own before I dig into the elements as I see them and answer your question.

Specifically:

• Do you have some essential elements in mind? Do you believe that there are essential elements? 
• What do you mean by "Christian faith?" What I'm trying to get at with this question is whether you mean a "Christian church," the faith of a particular "Christian" etc.

Again, I'm glad for a discussion of this topic.

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I appreciate the desire for clarity, and am glad for a conversation.

Briefly, what I mean by "defining down" is 1) What the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints puts forward seems to lack essential elements of the Christian faith, and 2) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seems to subordinate "Christian" to "Latter-day Saint." 

I want to emphasize that I'm considering the LDS Church institutionally, as did the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when it declined to accept LDS baptism. Individual Latter-day Saints have, in my experience, an astonishing variety of beliefs. That variety, and even as expressed on this board, is so wide that I think it's possible for a Latter-day Saint to swerve far enough from the LDS Church's institutional teachings to be somewhere in the pages of what C.S. Lewis described as "Mere Christianity."

I disagree with point #1 in that I don't think it lacks essential elements, but adds non-essential and perhaps idiosyncratic elements. I agree with #2. And I agree it is important to distinguish the institution from the members, as it is with virtually every Christian faith. I also agree with the Mere Christianity part. Well said.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Which elements would those be?  Because your statement below can be even more accurately applied to the Christian faith than the LDS faith.  There is no "essential element" of Christianity that isn't rejected by some Christian faith somewhere.

 

I think the greatest divergence is in trying to define what is an "essential element" of Christianity. Perhaps it is best said that "There is not someone's essential element that is not rejected by some Christian individual" somewhere. I don't think I said that well. . . . I think that the breadth is in what is considered by someone somewhere as essential that someone somewhere else would reject as essential. I also think that it is common for individuals to be inconsistent in their application of what is essential depending on whether or not it is to their advantage to label someone as Christian or not! I highlighted this because I personally think that is the real challenge/problem.

Edited June 14, 2023 by Navidad

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

@Navidad, not to down all of Utah, maybe part, I feel like your ward in Mexico, had a Utah ward mentality come upon them. For awhile I was thinking, wow, love how the ward in Mexico was treating you and attributed to being a whole 'nother world than here in my bubble in Utah. But sadly, looks to be the mentality crept up there too.

I was quite frankly surprised that so very much in the culture changed with the change of bishop. Both bishops I am thinking of came from colony royalty, but wow, what a difference. Maybe a year or so ago, I had a long conversation with a very highly regarded LDS academician who assured me that varieties of outlook because of the change of a bishop are quite common in an LDS ward. He informed me that sometimes the selection of someone quite different from the previous bishop is a conscious decision on the part of those who make those decisions. I think in our situation there was an additional variable in another person called as bishop after the long-time bishop, was in the position less than a year. Then I think they went back to the safety of "royalty." I mean that word with no disrespect. It is a word they (the members) use, partly in jest, but also in a sense of cultural reality. I do believe there is such a thing as a "colony Mormon culture." Having said that, I don't that is our issue. The overwhelming number of people in the pew have been very kind to us. I would not want to paint the picture with any other brush than that. There are lots of stresses and issues here right now. We certainly are but a blip in the radar. In fact, our decision to stop attending was partly, a conscious decision on our part not to add to that stress for those discomforted by the rather abrupt change in our roles. Since we were never members, there is not the added issue of someone "leaving the church."

[BlueDreams]

9 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I appreciate the desire for clarity, and am glad for a conversation.

Briefly, what I mean by "defining down" is 1) What the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints puts forward seems to lack essential elements of the Christian faith, and 2) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seems to subordinate "Christian" to "Latter-day Saint." 

Thanks, this helps. What I'm getting from this is that "defining down" is both removing essential aspects to the definition of Christian and seeing christian as THE defining characteristic of said disciple or institution. 

A small follow up: I've been running into the primary characteristics/beliefs of Christianity in terms of doctrine quite a bit lately (it's run parallel to my studies). But I've noticed most of these have a very solid protestant bend in language and emphasis. What do you see as essential? 

I would note that on the protestant orientation of essential, there's definite disagreements both for me individually and institutionally. So in that sense I absolutely agree that we lack these.  Obviously I also disagree that they're essential for my Christian practice. BUT I also understand and get why there is that focus. Historically it was to unify christianity. And I do think proto-orthodoxy was a better orientation than several of the other views that were around  at the time. And now in the present, When there's such diversity in practice maintaining a sense of coherency/unity would then have to focus on doctrine. 

That then places the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints in an interesting spot. We know on a good day we're unorthodox. My study of early Christianity, the history of the bible, and early Judaism has made me more comfortable being so. Though I think orthodoxy was a better option among several branches of Christian thought, I still think orthodoxy and focusing on it is incorrect for several reasons. 

On the 2nd point, I can see what you mean. I don't know if that's really how we think of it, but I can see where that comes from. I think its more accurate to say christian is a broad umbrella term and latter-day saint is more specific. For example we would never call the early apostles "latter-day saints" or ancient members of our church. Nor anyone in the bible or the BOM. They weren't; they aren't, they never will be. That is also not described in our scriptures.

9 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I want to emphasize that I'm considering the LDS Church institutionally, as did the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when it declined to accept LDS baptism. Individual Latter-day Saints have, in my experience, an astonishing variety of beliefs. That variety, and even as expressed on this board, is so wide that I think it's possible for a Latter-day Saint to swerve far enough from the LDS Church's institutional teachings to be somewhere in the pages of what C.S. Lewis described as "Mere Christianity."

I would hope so considering our leaders seem to have an affinity for quoting CS Lewis. I have only read parts of the screwtape letters but based on what I read in summaries online there's little even institutionally that we'd disagree with. I do find this separation between institution and lay members an odd idea from an LDS perspective. That is far far more blurred in our community than in others. In many/most communities, there seems more to be a process, including some form of seminary or schooling, that prepares a person to enter the priest-class of the community (using more academic terms). This subsection then take on ministry work full time (or close to it). Higher leadership is then pulled from this pool of people. So there can be more of that distinction between the pastor, priest, or minister from lay members; the institution and individual. In our church, there's not that clear of a distinction. One can go to a seminary or gain a religious calling and that has no consistent baring as to what they'll do in wards/stakes or even area callings. So the institution is moreso generational accruing of beliefs and practices that can, do, and should shift with coming generations. To say the institution believes xyz is to also say the bulk of the individuals in the institution believes xyz. We do have a variety of beliefs...we often share and disagree with each other and there's more flexibility in practice of said beliefs, I think. but you can note even on this thread when it comes to certain doctrinal stances, we have more agreement than not among those currently practicing/believing. To me that shows the current cultural/institutional orientation in belief (albeit from an extremely small sample size). 

 

With luv, 

BD 

 

Edited June 14, 2023 by BlueDreams

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

On the 2nd point, I can see what you mean. I don't know if that's really how we think of it, but I can see where that comes from. I think its more accurate to say christian is a broad umbrella term and latter-day saint is more specific. For example we would never call the early apostles "latter-day saints" or ancient members of our church. Nor anyone in the bible or the BOM. They weren't; they aren't, they never will be. That is also not described in our scriptures.

I've run into interesting uses of the term Christian in protestant circles that used to completely confuse me and your use of the term "broad umbrella term" reminded me of an example.

I remember once have a big disagreement with another poster (not on this board) when she referred to "Catholics and Christians" because I thought she was saying that Catholics weren't Christian.  She wasn't--not exactly anyway.  She was delineating between Catholics and protestants and didn't really mean anything deeper than that with her statement.  She was very confused why I was sticking up for Catholics and arguing that they were just as Christian as she was (though it wasn't lost on me that some Catholics wouldn't do me the same service if the roles had been reversed). 

Eventually we figured each other out and it was all good.  She didn't see Catholics as equal to her beliefs (which again I found kind of ironic seeing as how Catholics accepted her baptism but she didn't accept theirs), but as far as labeling went she was fine with applying the big umbrella term of "Christian" to them.  Even if she had her doubts that they were Christian enough to be saved.

She was a very interesting person and a lot of fun to have discussions with.  I can't remember what brand of protestantism she was anymore.

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

@Navidad, not to down all of Utah, maybe part, I feel like your ward in Mexico, had a Utah ward mentality come upon them. For awhile I was thinking, wow, love how the ward in Mexico was treating you and attributed to being a whole 'nother world than here in my bubble in Utah. But sadly, looks to be the mentality crept up there too.

I have been saying this for years- like it or not his ward was not going by the book.

Don't blame me, I just have been the messenger.

No teaching or speaking by nonmembers period.  

[Navidad]

6 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Thanks, this helps. What I'm getting from this is that "defining down" is both removing essential aspects to the definition of Christian and seeing christian as THE defining characteristic of said disciple or institution. 

A small follow up: I've been running into the primary characteristics/beliefs of Christianity in terms of doctrine quite a bit lately (it's run parallel to my studies). But I've noticed most of these have a very solid protestant bend in language and emphasis. What do you see as essential? 

I would note that on the protestant orientation of essential, there's definite disagreements both for me individually and institutionally. So in that sense I absolutely agree that we lack these.  Obviously I also disagree that they're essential for my Christian practice. BUT I also understand and get why there is that focus. Historically it was to unify Christianity. And I do think proto-orthodoxy was a better orientation than several of the other views that were around  at the time. And now in the present, When there's such diversity in practice maintaining a sense of coherency/unity would then have to focus on doctrine. 

That then places the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints in an interesting spot. We know on a good day we're unorthodox. My study of early Christianity, the history of the bible, and early Judaism has made me more comfortable being so. Though I think orthodoxy was a better option among several branches of Christian thought, I still think orthodoxy and focusing on it is incorrect for several reasons. 

On the 2nd point, I can see what you mean. I don't know if that's really how we think of it, but I can see where that comes from. I think its more accurate to say christian is a broad umbrella term and latter-day saint is more specific. For example we would never call the early apostles "latter-day saints" or ancient members of our church. Nor anyone in the bible or the BOM. They weren't; they aren't, they never will be. That is also not described in our scriptures.

I would hope so considering our leaders seem to have an affinity for quoting CS Lewis. I have only read parts of the screwtape letters but based on what I read in summaries online there's little even institutionally that we'd disagree with. I do find this separation between institution and lay members an odd idea from an LDS perspective. That is far far more blurred in our community than in others. In many/most communities, there seems more to be a process, including some form of seminary or schooling, that prepares a person to enter the priest-class of the community (using more academic terms). This subsection then take on ministry work full time (or close to it). Higher leadership is then pulled from this pool of people. So there can be more of that distinction between the pastor, priest, or minister from lay members; the institution and individual. In our church, there's not that clear of a distinction. One can go to a seminary or gain a religious calling and that has no consistent baring as to what they'll do in wards/stakes or even area callings. So the institution is moreso generational accruing of beliefs and practices that can, do, and should shift with coming generations. To say the institution believes xyz is to also say the bulk of the individuals in the institution believes xyz. We do have a variety of beliefs...we often share and disagree with each other and there's more flexibility in practice of said beliefs, I think. but you can note even on this thread when it comes to certain doctrinal stances, we have more agreement than not among those currently practicing/believing. To me that shows the current cultural/institutional orientation in belief (albeit from an extremely small sample size). 

 

With luv, 

BD 

 

I will happily be so bold as to speak for the non-LDS Christian world. What are the essentials that define Christianity?

1. A belief that God exists and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

2. That God loves us and sent His Son, Jesus to die for us. Jesus did indeed die and His death was the perfect sacrifice for human unworthiness. In His resurrection, he defeated death. If we confess our tendency to sin, ask Him for forgiveness, have faith and trust in Him,  and commit to turning away from our sin, He is faithful, just and will forgive us of our sin and offer us the opportunity for eternal life with Him. This whole process is deemed the atonement, but no one needs to understand that to be called a Christian.

Of course, some would add other things as essential, but there are always variables in any group. I believe the vast majority of those in the Christian community would agree number one and two are essentials. There are a lot more things to dig into, but understanding those things don't make someone a Christian, they simply add to their understanding and increase the variability of beliefs in the Christian world.

I can't add things like baptism, which large groups of Christians would add to the list, because there are large groups of Christians who would not agree that is requisite. I can't add the trinity, beliefs about maintaining or losing one's salvation, because people are deemed Christians who have never even thought about those questions. There will always be variances within groups, but there will always be some things that the entire group believes. That which everyone or lets say 95% believe can be deemed as essential or normative. Neither minority nor majority (unless the majority or consensus is 95%) beliefs are group essentials, not in any group. I can't get into what happens to those who never heard, or who never believed while human, because there are no essentials in any of those questions. There are widely variant beliefs, none of which are essential to hold to being called a Christian. Pre-millenial? Nope! Believe that the Bible is infallible or inerrant? Nope! Belief about creation? Nope! Belief about the fruits and gifts of the spirit? Nope! Remember, just because someone believes something else is essential, doesn't make it an essential belief in Christianity. There may be lots of more things that are deemed essential within certain groups, but that doesn't make them essential across the huge span of Christianity as we know it today.
 

Edited June 15, 2023 by Navidad

[BlueDreams]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I have been saying this for years- like it or not his ward was not going by the book.

Don't blame me, I just have been the messenger.

No teaching or speaking by nonmembers period.  

Can you find it in the handbook? I tried and was wondering if you knew where this rule was off-hand. 

With luv,

BD

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Can you find it in the handbook? I tried and was wondering if you knew where this rule was off-hand. 

With luv,

BD

No, not sure. I am sure it is there somewhere.

But being in leadership 40 years also gives one in idea almost at gene level that it just not done.

I know that hurts my case, but I will find it.

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No, not sure. I am sure it is there somewhere.

But being in leadership 40 years also gives one in idea almost at gene level that it just not done.

I know that hurts my case, but I will find it.

The guidance regarding teaching is found in 30.1.3:

Quote

People who are not members of the Church may be called to some positions, such as organist, music director, or a calling to help plan activities. However, they should not be called as teachers, as quorum or organization presidency members, or as Primary music leaders.

The bishop is also supposed to review the membership record of the individual for any annotations which may preclude the person from serving (e.g., with youth). That simply cannot be done if someone isn't a member. 

Speaking in sacrament meeting is mentioned in 29.2.1.4 (citations omitted):

Quote

The bishopric selects speakers for sacrament meeting. Most often they invite ward members, including youth. The stake president may assign high councilors or members of stake organization presidencies to speak. The stake president determines the frequency of such assignments.

It doesn't expressly say that nonmembers cannot speak in sacrament meeting, but I believe that's what is intended. I take this to mean that the pool of people to select from includes members of the ward (most common scenario) and occasionally members from other wards in the stake who are serving in leadership positions. 

I don't think "most often...members" means 'but occasionally nonmembers' (even though I personally wouldn't be bothered by that under certain circumstances).

P.S. On the tablet today, so forgive anything that doesn't come out properly formatted/readable.  

 

[Niblo]

12 minutes ago, Amulek said:

P.S. On the tablet today, so forgive anything that doesn't come out properly formatted/readable.  

 

Keep taking the tablets 🤪😉

[Saint Bonaventure]

15 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Thanks, this helps. What I'm getting from this is that "defining down" is both removing essential aspects to the definition of Christian and seeing christian as THE defining characteristic of said disciple or institution. 

I think we have all four wheels on the trolley. A few firebreathers argue that Catholics aren't Christians--Jack Chick and his famous Chick Tracts come to mind--but the general perspective I'm articulating is that if Christian feels like proto-LDS, or proto-Anglican or whatever, it feels like a devaluation.

We're probably just in the rhetoric of heresy here. Christian feels like "heretical LDS" in the way some Latter-day Saints use it. Catholics actually call Protestants heretics, so I'm not assuming any high ground here. 

Some folks get all worked up about Latter-day Saints saying that they are Christians, or Christians too, and they'll get worked up on the grounds of cultural appropriation. This is an identity politics objection that can come from the left or the right, and emphasizes that Latter-day Saints use many of the same words that the Catholics/Orthodox/Protestants do, but then have their own distinctive meanings. These folks can get worked up about "Our hymns in their hymnbook" and so on. Lots of grumpiness there.

I don't see things that way. From my perspective, Latter-day Saints seem to me emerging from a lot of internal discussion and development, much of it forced by persecution and geographic isolation. So, I think there's a little Rip Van Winkle happening with Latter-day Saints as they start to engage other groups and as we're all trying to learn one another's' vocabularies. 

15 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

A small follow up: I've been running into the primary characteristics/beliefs of Christianity in terms of doctrine quite a bit lately (it's run parallel to my studies). But I've noticed most of these have a very solid protestant bend in language and emphasis. What do you see as essential?

I'll make my answer to this one its own post. So much here. Thanks for asking.

15 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

 

I would note that on the protestant orientation of essential, there's definite disagreements both for me individually and institutionally. So in that sense I absolutely agree that we lack these.  Obviously I also disagree that they're essential for my Christian practice. BUT I also understand and get why there is that focus. Historically it was to unify christianity. And I do think proto-orthodoxy was a better orientation than several of the other views that were around  at the time. And now in the present, When there's such diversity in practice maintaining a sense of coherency/unity would then have to focus on doctrine.

Catholics and Orthodox believe that the unity of the Church, of the body of Christ, is vital to the reconciliation of creation to God. If you think of John 17:20-23, you'll be right on. There's deep theology here, related to the hypostatic union of the Trinity.

This idea isn't fashionable, but shared belief in essentials that draw one toward God, who is the Truth (capital "T") is absolutely vital to both Christian unity and to continued Christian practice over time. It's how loving God and loving neighbor are related, are two sides of a coin (1 John 4:7-12). It's how our relationship to God is not only individual, but is also interconnected--think of the parts of the body being interconnected (1 Cor. 12). There's a "We" in following God alongside the "I."

This is all part of the "one" aspect of the "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic" church article from the Nicene Creed. 

I'll observe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seems to be going through some deconstruction, and that can emphasize the "I" part of one's relationship to God. Too much of the "I" and you'll have divisions that won't heal, growing agnosticism, and eclectic beliefs. Too much "I" and the center won't hold. One of the reasons I connect with Latter-day Saints is that it helps cultivate a "We." 

15 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

 

That then places the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints in an interesting spot. We know on a good day we're unorthodox. My study of early Christianity, the history of the bible, and early Judaism has made me more comfortable being so. Though I think orthodoxy was a better option among several branches of Christian thought, I still think orthodoxy and focusing on it is incorrect for several reasons. 

 

We can discuss this topic until the cows come home, as far as I'm concerned. So many delightful, worthwhile issues and insights here.

 

15 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

On the 2nd point, I can see what you mean. I don't know if that's really how we think of it, but I can see where that comes from. I think its more accurate to say christian is a broad umbrella term and latter-day saint is more specific. For example we would never call the early apostles "latter-day saints" or ancient members of our church. Nor anyone in the bible or the BOM. They weren't; they aren't, they never will be. That is also not described in our scriptures.

If I may be so bold:

Latter-day Saints seem to want to be considered Christians by the Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant world because LDS want to feel accepted. I could be wrong, but I sense intense emotionality on the board whenever this topic comes up. I'm trying to be sensitive, and also trying to explain where I'm coming from. 

15 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I would hope so considering our leaders seem to have an affinity for quoting CS Lewis. I have only read parts of the screwtape letters but based on what I read in summaries online there's little even institutionally that we'd disagree with. I do find this separation between institution and lay members an odd idea from an LDS perspective. That is far far more blurred in our community than in others. In many/most communities, there seems more to be a process, including some form of seminary or schooling, that prepares a person to enter the priest-class of the community (using more academic terms). This subsection then take on ministry work full time (or close to it). Higher leadership is then pulled from this pool of people. So there can be more of that distinction between the pastor, priest, or minister from lay members; the institution and individual. In our church, there's not that clear of a distinction. One can go to a seminary or gain a religious calling and that has no consistent baring as to what they'll do in wards/stakes or even area callings. So the institution is moreso generational accruing of beliefs and practices that can, do, and should shift with coming generations. To say the institution believes xyz is to also say the bulk of the individuals in the institution believes xyz. We do have a variety of beliefs...we often share and disagree with each other and there's more flexibility in practice of said beliefs, I think. but you can note even on this thread when it comes to certain doctrinal stances, we have more agreement than not among those currently practicing/believing. To me that shows the current cultural/institutional orientation in belief (albeit from an extremely small sample size). 

 

With luv, 

BD 

 

I'm sure there are more conversations on this topic coming our way. I'll drop in a little C.S. Lewis on this, as I'm aware of a scholar or two who has tried to unpack the "Mere Christianity" ideas.

Thanks again for your thoughtful response.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Niblo said:

Keep taking the tablets 🤪😉

I prefer chewables.

 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

The guidance regarding teaching is found in 30.1.3:

That is not a rule regarding teaching. It is a rule regarding being called as a teacher. There is a huge difference. The challenge with the handbook is apparently the same as with the Scripture - interpretation. It is my understanding that much is left up to local leadership on the interpretation of the handbook. Some say, if it (this or that) isn't specifically mentioned in the handbook, then it is allowed. Others say if it isn't specifically mentioned in the handbook it is forbidden. Some say if the handbook says "a member may" then a non-member "may not." Others say the handbook is not a plan for every possible eventuality - therefore local discretion - identified to me as (bishop, stake president, and if necessary area president) is what prevails. My wife and I have spoken in sacrament services when area presidents were on the stand. We got hugs afterwards, but no rebuke; neither did the bishop. In fact for me, it led to further opportunities and to a suggestion for a calling that is not mentioned in the handbook for my wife. Apparently many believe that non-members may indeed have certain callings.

I was told once in SLC that I should not expect to be called to be a teacher in a ward, but a substitute teacher in Sunday School on an appropriate topic was fine. For this person, substitute teaching was not a calling. So when we studied the Old Testament in Sunday School and the called teacher couldn't be there, I or my wife substituted. Teaching is something that is done all the time in a ward formally and informally. I did many a talk for family reunions, teaching about their family heritage here in the colonies. I did sacrament talks teaching about Gods faithfulness to the colony pioneers. In that case no one else in our ward could have done it. I did Pioneer Day talks, teaching what no one else local could have done. I once gave a talk from the stand in a Sacrament service about Junius Romney's all-night struggle in prayer at MacDonald Springs prior to ordering the folks to leave in the 1912 exodus, less than thirty years after they came. I gave it from a perspective that God does guide and then provide. Who else in our ward could have given that talk? Did it teach and bless the people about God's faithfulness? You will have to ask them. I once taught in a fireside about God's provision to Zion's Camp when they finally arrived in western Missouri and faced terrible rains, cholera, and the Missouri militia and how God provided for them. It was a lesson in God's faithfulness - that a Primitive Baptist Church - Gilead Baptist would provide a dry shelter for the men including Joseph Smith. Maybe some of you read a brief mention of that story in SAINTS?

Good luck with finding 'NO SPEAKING . . . NO TEACHING' in the handbook. Doesn't God bring people to the church with gifts for a particular time and need? Isn't that what the New Testament says? I believe there are those in leadership who are giving more thought now to the concept of a "faithful non-member" in an LDS ward, something that has not really heretofore been considered. I have no idea why they may be having those discussions 🙃, but I think it is a good thing! Yes? No?

Edited June 15, 2023 by Navidad

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Latter-day Saints seem to want to be considered Christians by the Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant world because LDS want to feel accepted.

I think a lot of us just want our worship of Christ, our discipleship recognized because to us that is what being a Christian is, not being a part of Christianity, but being a follower of Christ….or at least trying to be.  Christianity as a group (not a belief) is something rather vague while our relationship with Christ and the Father is near and dear to our hearts.

In discussions with other Saints being accepted into the Christian community hasn’t been mentioned actually that I remember.  The discussion has always been focused on how strange it is our discipleship is not recognized.  Most often it is focused on examples of people not even knowing we accept the Bible and believe in Christ as the Son of God or on being told we are going to hell by fundamentalists, worshipping the wrong Jesus as if there was more than one.

The only time I can remember that acceptance was discussed was not because we wanted to feel accepted, but because we wanted to help.  A church group that operated a food kitchen in our ward boundaries up in Calgary refused to accept our volunteers (intended to be a ward ongoing service project) as helpers.  It was seen as strange since it wasn’t intended to be a teaching situation nor would we be wearing badges, but I suppose someone might have asked us what church we were with.  A similar charity grabbed us up as soon as they learned we were offering.

Edited June 15, 2023 by Calm

[Navidad]

On 6/13/2023 at 4:08 PM, Calm said:

You made a covenant with God for eternal life.  I am assuming this means you see yourself as putting yourself in God’s hands and willingly going through what he sends you even if in the moment you have a feeling “I don’t want to be here”….including once you reach the end of your covenant where God has fulfilled it all.  You will therefore be where you wanted to be when you made the covenant whether you really understood what that meant or not as well as well you want to be in that moment because you will be the new man that God has made of you through your covenant, correct?

Yes, you are correct. As did many of our (perhaps yours and mine) ancestors whose covenants cost them their mortal lives. I have never faced that and most likely never will.