7 Reasons Why Mormonism and Christianity Are Not the Same

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

I really don't care if we agree on doctrinal issues. Maybe that is what you are missing. I don't care and I don't believe Christ cares either.

I don't identify as a trinitarian, so I don't know if your are referring to  you or me? You are loading on me your non-LDS Christian baggage, I won't play. What difference does it make if we disagree on "taking on the name of Christ" in the Sacrament service? What matters is we both recommit our covenants with the Savior at that time. I never once in my 74 years thought about the trinity when partaking in the "Lord's Supper." Have you?

Why are you bringing what you hear from Fundamentalists to me? I do not believe you and I worship a different Christ. Why are you dumping that on me? Or giving me a test? I don't care if I flunk or pass your test. Christ is my Savior. His essence and embodiment, or lack thereof is irrelevant to me as an Evangelical.

Is my Christ embodied still? Probably. I don't know and I really don't care. It is not something I would debate about with you or anyone else. I guess He has a glorified body as I type this? So what if that is incorrect?

I don't care about consubstantiation or Trinitarianism. Why are you bringing me that baggage? I will not debate or fight with you about that. It isn't important to me. What isn't a mystery?

Our beliefs may or may not be different? My beliefs are not as important to me as my beliefs are apparently important to you!

My trust and faith are what are important. Perhaps that is why you and I have such a hard time communicating. Your beliefs and doctrine are paramount to you? My trust and faith in Christ are important to me, not how or if He is embodied or not.  Beliefs and doctrines rank lower for me than trust and faith. I am happy to discuss that difference at any time, but I will always come down on the side of trust and faith. I believe Christ doesn't covet my correct beliefs, but my trust and faith in Him.
Yes, in truth, I always enjoyed the hippos . . . . . from a distance 😀.

If our Doctrine is not important to you and you don't believe it, why hang out in a ward?

Ok, nevermind.  I will never understand all these paradoxes.

I look for a rational complete cohesive paradigm about God, and I follow it, and God has told me here is where I belong.

I can't understand another way. Reason and testimony. You can't beat it

[BlueDreams]

On 6/15/2023 at 8:44 AM, Navidad said:

Thanks for the long and insightful reply. I had the privilege of serving as a Director of Counseling Services at two denominational colleges. There is much insight to be gained from such work. I have been very much impacted by marriage and family systems theory. Later in life that helped me to be a more effective superintendent of schools. As I have said on here before, I think othering, normalizing, generalizing, dehumanizing, and ranking are five of the most serious causational forces in human conflict. Virtually all the symptoms - the isms come from one or more of those five. Of course, they are often present in religious groups. Such groups have not allowed the gospel to vaccinate them from these five causal agents of human conflict. I regret that. Thanks for your always insightful and healing comments.

Navidad, there are many posts of yours that I have to pause and think to myself "I feel like I disagree, but I don't know why." These two posts fit that category where there are apects of near agreement sprinkled with things I don't.  the Italicized I agree with....I would probably synthesize them as manifestations of unhealthy pride. The sort constantly mentioned in the BoM. The other 2 I don't agree with. Normalizing to me can be quite useful and positive. I use it all the time to help reduce patterns of shame in others. It can help them get unstuck in unhealthy patterns where shame drives unhealthy behaviors/thoughts. Generalize is fairly innoucuos to me. Yes it can lead to negative behaviors. But it can also just give a general overview of human patterns and experiences that can help us better navigate concerns or new circumstances. IT can be a useful tool to help teach and transmit knowledge. Just because something may have a negative manifestation doesn't mean it is always a negative to hold.

15 hours ago, Navidad said:

This is a fascinating, interesting, and sad conversation. I will try and say this in a way that is correct for all. You see, there are non-LDS Christians who, because of their doctrine do not accept LDS Christians, just as they are,  as Christians and thus capable of being sanctified in Christ.

On the other hand, there are LDS Christians who, because of their doctrine do not accept non-LDS Christians, just as they are, as holding the Gift of the Holy Spirit, or as being capable of being exalted as Christ, just as they are.

Each view of the other is based on an understanding of and commitment to doctrine. That understanding and commitment creates a prism, a lens through which each understands life. Using my words, that doctrine has evolved into dogma which requires duty. In the history of human religion, when doctrine turns into dogma and into duty, lovingkindness is often lost in unquestioned fealty to doctrine, which the adherent is bound (typically  by some kind of commitment) to honor.

In my mind (such as it is) that is what makes this sad. That is why I value trust and faith over correct doctrine. Each group, emotional because of the pain and judgment inflicted on it by the other, then rails at the beam in the other's lens without recognizing their own. I wish it could be different. All faiths at times create blinders. That too, is sad and must make the Savior weep.

This was a harder one to nail down exactly what I disagree with and why. For one, the lds one isn't super correct. The "gift of the Holy ghost" Is extremely specific in an LDS context. It can be received by laying on of hands by proper authority (derived by priesthood restored). From what I could glean vial googling there's a distinction between many protestant definitions and focuses and our own. It's just a matter of fact that by our definition and use of the term non-LDS don't have the Gift of the Holy Ghost. What I do see a problem is a potential negative manifestation of this belief to assume that if one hasn't had this ordinance, one hasn't been guided or experienced the HG...including awe inspiring potent directions. 

For me, this comes note just from a rote commitment to doctrine, but how I experience said doctrine. That experience is based on a progression marked both in individual/personal experiences and communal rites and covenants. 

On the christian end, though I may be annoyed by the assertion, there's ones outside that one that I find more problematic. Namely in the assumptions one makes about what happens to non-christians of any stripe. There's a range of beliefs about who inevitably makes it to heaven and hell...but the ones that seem extremely cutthroat and assume the worst outcome for the majority of humanity is far more concerning. The ones that become rigid in their assumptions and begin to isolate are more concerning too (lds or not)

Lovingkindness is lost on several fronts.... dogmatism and duty do not consistently lead to that disassociation. I find it most consistently lost in pride. For example, I know Saint Bonaventure is obviously a very committed man to catholicism, including in the sacred tradition and dogmas that build up around it. I also don't doubt his capacity for lovingkindness in all that he does on this board. Honestly he does it more consistently that I do from what I can tell (I'm never consistent on this board).  From my personal experience, duty has been one of the greatest spaces for me to develop both lovingkindness and other needed christ-like traits. From my mission, to when I was a temple worker, to my partnership with my husband, to my children. Again, having a negative manifestation does not make it permanently negative. 

For me trust and faith need not be out of line of correct doctrine. JS trusted and had faith in God's capacity to reveal more truth, and that led to doctrines that to me make is far more clear how justice and mercy are balanced. 

Any view, assumption, idea, philosophy, etc will have blindspots. The people who formed them carry several blindspots by design and thus it filters into just about everything we do. I don't know if that makes God sad. It seems a little odd to me to think that since They sent us here, knew we'd be blind to the space of Joy and love and fullness we were leaving, and would be meandering in quite a muddy ball of mess down here that they'd be sad we're currently imperfectly getting it. Why would you be sad to know that your kids who are trying got a little mud on their knees while outside their heavenly home?  I think the only ones God is truly sad about are the few I've met who take the purpose of being here and proverbially crap on it; finding ways to purposely push out goodness in any of its forms....to go against the light for selfish pursuits.   

 

With luv, 

BD

[BlueDreams]

On 6/14/2023 at 8:26 PM, Navidad said:

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.
 

Forgot this one. With all due respect, i don't know if you are fully representative of the non-lds christian world. I trust you to give a great explanation of your personal beliefs (as you have here)....but from what I've seen and engaged with, there's quite of few things about your assumptions and beliefs that are non-representative of the greater whole. As a fellow non-representational christian, I don't think that's a bad thing....if just means there'll be limits to what I or you can claim to be when representing the larger christian world. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Calm]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

If our Doctrine is not important to you and you don't believe it, why hang out in a ward?

Ok, nevermind.  I will never understand all these paradoxes.

Perhaps it might help to consider one can use a faith community in order to practice the gospel, such as expressing one’s witness of Christ.  Christians are meant to gather together in Christ’s name as well.  Navidad may be not that concerned about doctrine, but he is very concerned with practicing the gospel as far as I can tell. 

The ward was a place that was available to him and his wife where he could practice his faith.  It wasn’t a perfect fit in every way, but it doesn’t need to be I would think.  It reminds me of Eugene England’s Why the Church Is As True As the Gospel in a couple of ways where it is the intimate experience of faith that is so crucial.  
 

Btw, Navidad might like this essay about the Truth of the Church if he isn’t already aware of it.  It might help explain in part why correctness in doctrine and ordinances are so important to Latter-day Saints, perhaps even for reasons he can relate to, which is why we won’t be letting go of our view of our beliefs any time soon.  Not quoting that part as not as relevant to my specific topic in this post, will have to use the link…this essay is one of my favorites about the Church.

Quote

But one conference was particularly memorable. I was twelve and sitting near the front because my father was being sustained as a high councilor in a newly formed stake. I had just turned around in my seat to tease my sister, who was sit­ting behind me, when I felt something, vaguely familiar, burning at the center of my heart and bones and then almost physically turning me around to look at the transfigured face of Apostle Harold B. Lee, the “visiting authority.” He had sud­denly interrupted his prepared sermon and was giving the new stake an apostolic blessing. And I became aware, for a second and confirming time in my life, of the presence of the Holy Ghost and the special witness of Jesus Christ. How many boring stake conferences would I attend to be even once in the presence of such grace? Thousands—all there are. That pearl is without price. And because I have since learned better what to look for and find there—not doctrinal revelation so much as understanding of and experience with the members of the Church—the conferences are no longer boring. Thus, one of the earliest and most important pillars of my faith came not through some great insight into the gospel but through an ex­perience I could only have had because I was doing my duty in the Church, however immaturely.

https://www.eugeneengland.org/why-the-church-is-as-true-as-the-gospel

Maybe Navidad has found he can experience this among different Christian faiths than his own.

It is all interpretation anyway, so if he is capable of interpreting his spiritual experience with the ward as satisfying his need to gather with fellow believers, how is that hard to understand?

Perhaps what England says about paradox and contradictions is relevant here as well and you mentioning that also contributed to me thinking of this essay.

Quote

We all know from experience the consequences for mortal life of this fundamental, eternal truth about reality. Throughout history, the most important and productive ideas have been paradoxical; the energizing force in all an has been conflict and opposition; the basis for success in all economic, political, and other social development has been competition and dialogue. Think of the U.S.federal system of checks and balances and a two-party political system (which together make pluralistic democracy pos­sible), or of Romanticism and Classicism, reason and emotion, freedom and order, individual and community, men and women (whose differences make eternal in­crease possible), justice and mercy (whose opposition makes our re­demption through the “At Onement” possible). Life in this uni­verse is full of polarities and is made full by them; we struggle with them, complain about them, even try sometimes to destroy them with dogmatism or self-righteousness, or retreat into the innocence that is only ignorance, a return to the Garden of Eden where there is de­ceptive ease and clarity but no salva­tion. William Blake, the prophetic poet, taught that “without contraries is no existence,” and warned that “whoever tries to reconcile [the con­traries] seeks to destroy existence.” 

 

Quote

  I believe that any good church is a school of love and that the LDS church, for most people, perhaps all, is the best one, the “only true and living Church” (D&C 1:30)—not just because its doctrines teach and embody some of the great and central paradoxes but, more im­portant, because the Church provides the best context for struggling with, working through, enduring, and being re­deemed by those paradoxes and oppositions that give energy and meaning to the universe. Just before his death, Joseph Smith, also with prophetic perception, wrote, “By proving con­traries, truth is made manifest.”1 By “prove” he meant not only to demonstrate logically but to test, to struggle with, and to work out in practical experience. The Church is as true—as ef­fective—as the gospel because it involves us directly in proving contraries, working constructively with the opposi­tions within ourselves and especially between people, strug­gling with paradoxes and polarities at an experiential level that can redeem us. The Church is true because it is concrete, not theoretical; in all its contradictions and problems, it is at least as productive of good as is the gospel.

Seems like the struggle of practical experience could be quite effective even among those who believe differently than ourselves…..One of the reasons I suspect we value missions so highly, whether proselyting or service.

Quote

In the life of the true Church, there are constant opportunities for all to serve, especially to learn to serve people we would not nor­mally choose to serve—or possibly even associate with—and thus opportunities to learn to love unconditionally. There is constant encouragement, even pressure, to be “active”: to have a calling” and thus to have to grapple with relationships and management, with other peoples ideas and wishes, their feel­ings and failures; to attend classes and meetings and to have to listen to other people’s sometimes misinformed or prejudiced notions and to have to make some constructive response; to have leaders and occasionally to be hurt by their weakness and blindness, even unrighteous dominion; and then to be made a leader and find that you, too, with all the best intentions, can be weak and blind and unrighteous. Church involvement teaches us compassion and patience as well as courage and dis­cipline. It makes us responsible for the personal and marital, physical, and spiritual welfare of people we may not already love (or may even heartily dislike), and thus we learn to love them. It stretches and challenges us, though disappointed and exasperated, in ways we would not otherwise choose to be— and thus gives us a chance to be made better than we might choose to be, but ultimately need and want to be.

It’s not that hard for me to picture how Navidad might be willing to adapt this in the sense of him being among those where differences extended into belief deeper than usual for someone attending our Church if the other choice was the lack of opportunity to practice the gospel among fellow believers as well as why being able to minister to, to serve that community was important to him.

Out of curiosity how did you react when you were restricted from your faith community during Covid lockdowns?  Did it make a difference to you in the sense you felt limited at all in the practice of your faith?  If you were in a town with no other Saint, would you consider attending another Christian community for some of that proving of contraries, participating as they allowed you to while remaining true to your own beliefs, of course?

Edited June 17, 2023 by Calm

[Sara H]

I'm now in the middle of attempting to get some shut-eye, but my cats have taken it upon themselves to start World War III under my bed for some reason. Since I can't sleep, I figured I'd catch up on how the conversation has progressed. Here is what I'm beginning to grasp about the situation. The word "Christian" has one hundred times the weight of meaning for a non-LDS Christian than it does for a Latter-day Saint. I suppose you could look at it the same way that we look at the word salvation; to a Christian, the word salvation is of the utmost importance, whereas to a Latter-day Saint, the word salvation is secondary, coming in behind exaltation as the most important concept. Despite having studied the first vision, I am still at a loss to comprehend why members of the LDS church are so adamant about being labelled as Christians. At the time when Joseph went into the Grove to pray, he was trying to determine which Christian religion to join. He was not interested in Islam or Judaism; rather, he was trying to pick between the Methodist and the Presbyterian churches, along with potentially one or two additional Christian denominations. Joseph was instructed by God not to join any particular Christian religion since the doctrines of those faiths had become abominable, and the ministers and preachers of those faiths had become corrupt. Is there anything that has occurred in the previous two centuries that the Latter-day Saints can point to as evidence that Christianity has evolved and is no longer an abomination, or that the professors of Christianity are no longer corrupt? Since we are the only Christians who adhere to the restored gospel, I assert that our teaching maintains that we believe Christianity to be an apostate form of the true Christianity, the restored gospel. Since that day when Joseph knelt in the Grove and had a conversation with God, nothing has altered within the framework of Christianity. Is that not the case? If other Christian denominations like Baptists, Methodists, or Presbyterians decided to adopt the restored gospel, they could, and I'm sure God would help them and let them receive the same power and authority we claim to have from God. However, no Christian denomination has adopted the restored gospel, so nothing has changed in this regard. Why, however, are we so adamant that we first and foremost be recognised as Christians rather than Mormons? I just don't see why we're throwing in the towel on the word Mormon and putting all of our focus on being recognised as Christians.

[Navidad]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

If our Doctrine is not important to you and you don't believe it, why hang out in a ward?

Ok, nevermind.  I will never understand all these paradoxes.

I look for a rational complete cohesive paradigm about God, and I follow it, and God has told me here is where I belong.

I can't understand another way. Reason and testimony. You can't beat it

We have hung out in the ward for these years for the fellowship . . . the worship . . . and the ministry . . . and sometimes for the baked goods. I have never looked for a rational complete cohesive paradigm about God. That is way over my pay grade. I have always looked for a relationship with a God who, in the words of the hymn is with me when:

I come to the garden alone
While the dew is still on the roses
And the voice I hear falling on my ear
The son of God discloses

… And he walks with me and he talks with me
And he tells me I am his own
And the joy we share as we tarry there
None other has ever known

… He speaks and the sound of his voice is so sweet
The birds hush their singing
And the melody that he gave to me
Within my heart is ringing

… And he walks with me and he talks with me
And he tells me I am his own
And the joy we share as we tarry there
None other has ever known.

Actually the garden is a wonderful place to commune with God, but it lacks the ministry and fellowship (with humans) perspective. I am allowed to sing in the garden, so that is special to me. My wife is often there with me. That is special to me. And the birds? Oh my!

God has given you a different desire and perhaps need in your own heart and mind. . . that of a "rational complete comprehensive paradigm." I honor that and wish you nothing but the best as you walk that path. I am glad that God has led you to a place where you belong. We kind of, sort of, thought we had found that place too, in the ward (not Church) family.

It would be nice to be able to join our ward, but it is part of a formal strict organization that won't have us without renouncing most of what has gone on before in our spiritual journey so it is not a garden, at least not for us at this time. I don't understand your way and you don't understand mine. Let's just honor each other's path and be friends. I would like that.

Edited June 17, 2023 by Navidad

[MustardSeed]

4 hours ago, Sara H said:

I'm now in the middle of attempting to get some shut-eye, but my cats have taken it upon themselves to start World War III under my bed for some reason. Since I can't sleep, I figured I'd catch up on how the conversation has progressed. Here is what I'm beginning to grasp about the situation. The word "Christian" has one hundred times the weight of meaning for a non-LDS Christian than it does for a Latter-day Saint. I suppose you could look at it the same way that we look at the word salvation; to a Christian, the word salvation is of the utmost importance, whereas to a Latter-day Saint, the word salvation is secondary, coming in behind exaltation as the most important concept. Despite having studied the first vision, I am still at a loss to comprehend why members of the LDS church are so adamant about being labelled as Christians. At the time when Joseph went into the Grove to pray, he was trying to determine which Christian religion to join. He was not interested in Islam or Judaism; rather, he was trying to pick between the Methodist and the Presbyterian churches, along with potentially one or two additional Christian denominations. Joseph was instructed by God not to join any particular Christian religion since the doctrines of those faiths had become abominable, and the ministers and preachers of those faiths had become corrupt. Is there anything that has occurred in the previous two centuries that the Latter-day Saints can point to as evidence that Christianity has evolved and is no longer an abomination, or that the professors of Christianity are no longer corrupt? Since we are the only Christians who adhere to the restored gospel, I assert that our teaching maintains that we believe Christianity to be an apostate form of the true Christianity, the restored gospel. Since that day when Joseph knelt in the Grove and had a conversation with God, nothing has altered within the framework of Christianity. Is that not the case? If other Christian denominations like Baptists, Methodists, or Presbyterians decided to adopt the restored gospel, they could, and I'm sure God would help them and let them receive the same power and authority we claim to have from God. However, no Christian denomination has adopted the restored gospel, so nothing has changed in this regard. Why, however, are we so adamant that we first and foremost be recognised as Christians rather than Mormons? I just don't see why we're throwing in the towel on the word Mormon and putting all of our focus on being recognised as Christians.

Fair question. My simple response, which may not be sufficient would be to offer a metaphor.  If I came into your kitchen and said all of this food is bad. You need some thing healthy.. And I then gave you fruits, vegetables and lean meat- your family comes in and says hey where is the casserole? Where’s my bread? Where’s my peanut butter? Where’s my cheezy lasagna?  
Then I said, I have given you new fuel.  Then your family said but this isn’t food and it’s not good.

It is all food.  It’s all good.  We are the annoying nutritionist who comes in and says this is what’s best. 

When God said, things were corrupt, he was talking about religious practice (which infused fats and preservatives)  not Christianity (food)  
 

I wish I could retain information better. I remember being taught some thing about certain eras since the church was formed, where there is specific reasons that the LDS church distanced itself from the symbol of the cross. I would suggest that this move itself spoke to most people who don’t do the deep dive into doctrines, etc. and only see the optics of moves such as eliminating the cross and put meaning of that to find us as Christians or not . 
 

In my experience, I can’t speak for anybody elses ward experience, historically there has been woefully minimal focus on the Savior in church, talks, lessons, and interpersonal conversation compared to other religions. I think we were wrong. I think the prophet recognizes that. I think he has course corrected beautifully.The superficial explanation becomes “the prophet is just trying to make us fit in with everybody else.” I disagree. I think he saw a fundamental problem with how we operate, and I think that he was correct.Maybe if I had been less focused on the length of my shorts and more focused on Jesus in the 1980s my life would look completely different today.

I can see how other religions would take offense to the Joseph Smith story where we claim that God said that every other religious practice was problematic.

Edited June 17, 2023 by MustardSeed

[MustardSeed]

Just now, MustardSeed said:

Maybe if I had been less focused on the length of my shorts and more focused on Jesus in the 1980s my life would look completely different today.

Quoting myself, because I would like to emphasize this as a very painful truth. There is no maybe about it. I cannot blame the church for it. However, I do think the youth today who choose to stick around, have so much more potential for spirituality, than do I. I envy their opportunity.

[MustardSeed]

Also, I would like to submit that my “toxic trait“ is that I don’t proofread until after I have posted. I do believe I have run a few old timers off. Lol.

[teddyaware]

3 hours ago, Sara H said:

I'm now in the middle of attempting to get some shut-eye, but my cats have taken it upon themselves to start World War III under my bed for some reason. Since I can't sleep, I figured I'd catch up on how the conversation has progressed. Here is what I'm beginning to grasp about the situation. The word "Christian" has one hundred times the weight of meaning for a non-LDS Christian than it does for a Latter-day Saint. I suppose you could look at it the same way that we look at the word salvation; to a Christian, the word salvation is of the utmost importance, whereas to a Latter-day Saint, the word salvation is secondary, coming in behind exaltation as the most important concept. Despite having studied the first vision, I am still at a loss to comprehend why members of the LDS church are so adamant about being labelled as Christians. At the time when Joseph went into the Grove to pray, he was trying to determine which Christian religion to join. He was not interested in Islam or Judaism; rather, he was trying to pick between the Methodist and the Presbyterian churches, along with potentially one or two additional Christian denominations. Joseph was instructed by God not to join any particular Christian religion since the doctrines of those faiths had become abominable, and the ministers and preachers of those faiths had become corrupt. Is there anything that has occurred in the previous two centuries that the Latter-day Saints can point to as evidence that Christianity has evolved and is no longer an abomination, or that the professors of Christianity are no longer corrupt? Since we are the only Christians who adhere to the restored gospel, I assert that our teaching maintains that we believe Christianity to be an apostate form of the true Christianity, the restored gospel. Since that day when Joseph knelt in the Grove and had a conversation with God, nothing has altered within the framework of Christianity. Is that not the case? If other Christian denominations like Baptists, Methodists, or Presbyterians decided to adopt the restored gospel, they could, and I'm sure God would help them and let them receive the same power and authority we claim to have from God. However, no Christian denomination has adopted the restored gospel, so nothing has changed in this regard. Why, however, are we so adamant that we first and foremost be recognised as Christians rather than Mormons? I just don't see why we're throwing in the towel on the word Mormon and putting all of our focus on being recognised as Christians.

I agree with you; I made the same points earlier on this thread. Why members of the restored church are hurt or offended that the adherents to historical Christianity won’t include the Latter-Day Saints under their umbrella of acceptable Christian sects is beyond me. In the early years of the restoration, the fact that the church was condemned as a heretical religion, unworthy of being called “Christian,” was worn as a badge of honor by the leaders of the church. And to set the record straight, believers in Christ were first called Christians in ancient America, one hundred years before the ministry of Christ in the Holy Land.

13 And he fastened on his head-plate, and his breastplate, and his shields, and girded on his armor about his loins; and he took the pole, which had on the end thereof his rent coat, (and he called it the title of liberty) and he bowed himself to the earth, and he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren, so long as there should a band of Christians remain to possess the land.

14 For thus were all the true believers of Christ, who belonged to the church of God, called by those who did not belong to the church.

15 And those who did belong to the church were faithful; yea, all those who were true believers in Christ took upon them, gladly, the name of Christ, or Christians as they were called, because of their belief in Christ who should come.

16 And therefore, at this time, Moroni prayed that the cause of the Christians, and the freedom of the land might be favored. (Alma 46)

[Navidad]

11 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Navidad, there are many posts of yours that I have to pause and think to myself "I feel like I disagree, but I don't know why." These two posts fit that category where there are apects of near agreement sprinkled with things I don't.  the Italicized I agree with....I would probably synthesize them as manifestations of unhealthy pride. The sort constantly mentioned in the BoM. The other 2 I don't agree with. Normalizing to me can be quite useful and positive. I use it all the time to help reduce patterns of shame in others. It can help them get unstuck in unhealthy patterns where shame drives unhealthy behaviors/thoughts. Generalize is fairly innoucuos to me. Yes it can lead to negative behaviors. But it can also just give a general overview of human patterns and experiences that can help us better navigate concerns or new circumstances. IT can be a useful tool to help teach and transmit knowledge. Just because something may have a negative manifestation doesn't mean it is always a negative to hold.

This was a harder one to nail down exactly what I disagree with and why. For one, the lds one isn't super correct. The "gift of the Holy ghost" Is extremely specific in an LDS context. It can be received by laying on of hands by proper authority (derived by priesthood restored). From what I could glean vial googling there's a distinction between many protestant definitions and focuses and our own. It's just a matter of fact that by our definition and use of the term non-LDS don't have the Gift of the Holy Ghost. What I do see a problem is a potential negative manifestation of this belief to assume that if one hasn't had this ordinance, one hasn't been guided or experienced the HG...including awe inspiring potent directions. 

For me, this comes note just from a rote commitment to doctrine, but how I experience said doctrine. That experience is based on a progression marked both in individual/personal experiences and communal rites and covenants. 

On the christian end, though I may be annoyed by the assertion, there's ones outside that one that I find more problematic. Namely in the assumptions one makes about what happens to non-christians of any stripe. There's a range of beliefs about who inevitably makes it to heaven and hell...but the ones that seem extremely cutthroat and assume the worst outcome for the majority of humanity is far more concerning. The ones that become rigid in their assumptions and begin to isolate are more concerning too (lds or not)

Lovingkindness is lost on several fronts.... dogmatism and duty do not consistently lead to that disassociation. I find it most consistently lost in pride. For example, I know Saint Bonaventure is obviously a very committed man to catholicism, including in the sacred tradition and dogmas that build up around it. I also don't doubt his capacity for lovingkindness in all that he does on this board. Honestly he does it more consistently that I do from what I can tell (I'm never consistent on this board).  From my personal experience, duty has been one of the greatest spaces for me to develop both lovingkindness and other needed christ-like traits. From my mission, to when I was a temple worker, to my partnership with my husband, to my children. Again, having a negative manifestation does not make it permanently negative. 

For me trust and faith need not be out of line of correct doctrine. JS trusted and had faith in God's capacity to reveal more truth, and that led to doctrines that to me make is far more clear how justice and mercy are balanced. 

Any view, assumption, idea, philosophy, etc will have blindspots. The people who formed them carry several blindspots by design and thus it filters into just about everything we do. I don't know if that makes God sad. It seems a little odd to me to think that since They sent us here, knew we'd be blind to the space of Joy and love and fullness we were leaving, and would be meandering in quite a muddy ball of mess down here that they'd be sad we're currently imperfectly getting it. Why would you be sad to know that your kids who are trying got a little mud on their knees while outside their heavenly home?  I think the only ones God is truly sad about are the few I've met who take the purpose of being here and proverbially crap on it; finding ways to purposely push out goodness in any of its forms....to go against the light for selfish pursuits.   

 

With luv, 

BD

Thank you for your post. As always it is insightful, kind, and I learn from it. I am often in your shoes . . . I read posts here I am not sure if I should like or disagree with. I "like" them whether I agree or not because I like them. Disagreeing may also mean I don't understand the meaning of words that are used by the one posting. I also have a lens and blindspots. Those often get in the way of both agreement and understanding.

I speak and write regularly on human conflict, especially in two worlds - the world of religion and the world of public education. If I am traveling somewhere to speak or writing something it is far more often than not about religion or about public education. When I speak or write, I usually have opportunity to define my terms. Here, on these posts I do not. I write long, rambling posts, but still don't have time to define the terms I use. I also think when I make a comment in a post here, folks assume I am writing specifically about the LDS church. This is after all, a Mormon forum. Sometimes I am, but many times I am not. I don't always identify which. I am sure that is confusing.

When I write about doctrine, I am not writing about LDS doctrine. I am talking about religious, sectarian, ideological, groups - doctrine in the broadest of terms. When I use the word dogma, I am not using it in the Catholic sense of the word, but in the absolutist sense of the word (as in dogmatic), and certainly not always in a religious sense. I write about the soul - but more often than not, I am not using the religious sense of the word. When I talk about normalizing, I am referring to the tendency to make the fringe the norm for a benefit or purpose. This happens in politics, in school districts, in churches, and in anywhere dogmatism can be present, especially in families.

Ditto for ranking, othering, generalizing, and dehumanizing. They are the source causal agents behind all the negative isms in my paradigm and model. It is what I teach and I find it generally well-accepted or I would never be invited anywhere to speak! I find a focus on the isms themselves, not particularly conducive to effecting change if we don't go deeper into the causative agents that produce them.

I generally don't define my use of words here. In spite of my lengthy posts, there just isn't time. I am a big advocate of systems theory, especially in conflict theory. "Duty" has an especially negative context for me in my definition and usage of the term. Without an understanding of that, I would guess some of my posts are confusing to someone with differing definitions. When the order was given to attack the Fanchers, folklore (history? - we are not sure which) tells us that the leader said "Do your Duty!" That is the type of duty I am decrying. It is evident in public education and in religious culture. It was ever present in the Second Shepherd's Crusade in France in the early 1300s and is ever present today.

And perhaps what I should first and foremost acknowledge, I don't fit paradigms. I am not particularly proud of that. The fact is I simply just don't fit many paradigms people have developed. I often face that living here in Mexico. I faced that as a superintendent and deputy superintendent in large urban school districts. Sometimes I face that as an Evangelical. I often face that here. Perhaps what I do have to admit that what I do enjoy is knocking down incomplete or inaccurate norms. Our society today (again - public schools and religious institutions) are replete with inaccurate norms. Of course, now I haven't defined how I think of "norms."

Sorry, I won't go on. Just please know I appreciate your posts. I am an "other" on this forum, but have largely been made to feel welcome. I appreciate that so much. The LDS church is confusing for me, so I tend to ask lots of questions. On the one hand my LDS friends insist they focus on being orthopraxic instead of orthodox, but yet at the same time have a baked-in orthodoxy that to an observer (me) seems to be ranked higher than orthopraxy and that provides most of their life's direction, culture, and identity. That confuses me. The breadth of LDS doctrine's influence in the lives of its followers is approximated in no other Christian faith I know of except for the Anabaptist - Mennonites, Amish, and Brethren, and some Pentecostal groups. Sorry, gotta quit now. Take care, God bless, and keep the thoughtful posts coming!

Edited June 17, 2023 by Navidad

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Out of curiosity how did you react when you were restricted from your faith community during Covid lockdowns?  Did it make a difference to you in the sense you felt limited at all in the practice of your faith?  If you were in a town with no other Saint, would you consider attending another Christian community for some of that proving of contraries, participating as they allowed you to while remaining true to your own beliefs, of course?

I have always been in that position, so it wasn't much different, honestly.

I got my shots, got covid, more shots, and got immune.  That's life. Just another trauma to get through. Next?

All my life I studied philosophy in one way or another. Nominally Catholic but I invented my own religion, and then found that others had it too. 

Odd folks from Utah that believed in golden plates.    I sought for something that was logically perfect, meaning it had to be based on human experience, and emulating a perfect human ideal, because we are humans, and all we have as clues to ANYTHING is human experience.  If YOU have not experienced it, it is hearsay, fine for science, but not for basing your life on.

The legend or truth of this prophet or whatever called Jesus in the stories, fit the hypothetical ideal perfectly.

Then a Utah gold plate believer gave me a book that said I could talk to God, and even more unbelievably that he would talk to me.

No way.

Couldn't be, but I couldn't get it out of my head. But then I tried it.

Unspeakable life changing event.  Unspeakable, so I won't.

But then these folks are socializers also.  Uh oh.

Ward dinners. Go visit people. Listen to what seemed like babble, smiling through it.  

The idea that "fellowship" was important in following the Christ, was hard, and still is.

But now I am much better at it.  But to find a church because you like the people is totally foreign to me, because they call themselves xyz- in this case c-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n, is to me like being a space alien.

Unfathomable that anyone would do that.  To create clubs and meet on Sundays to make friends who also call themselves "xyz-ers" ?

What's the Doctrine based on philosophically?  What's your paradigm and how does your xyz fit with abc ?

That's me.

 

 

[Navidad]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Perhaps it might help to consider one can use a faith community in order to practice the gospel, such as expressing one’s witness of Christ.  Christians are meant to gather together in Christ’s name as well.  Navidad may be not that concerned about doctrine, but he is very concerned with practicing the gospel as far as I can tell. 

The ward was a place that was available to him and his wife where he could practice his faith.  It wasn’t a perfect fit in every way, but it doesn’t need to be I would think.  It reminds me of Eugene England’s Why the Church Is As True As the Gospel in a couple of ways where it is the intimate experience of faith that is so crucial.  
 

Btw, Navidad might like this essay about the Truth of the Church if he isn’t already aware of it.  It might help explain in part why correctness in doctrine and ordinances are so important to Latter-day Saints, perhaps even for reasons he can relate to, which is why we won’t be letting go of our view of our beliefs any time soon.  Not quoting that part as not as relevant to my specific topic in this post, will have to use the link…this essay is one of my favorites about the Church.

https://www.eugeneengland.org/why-the-church-is-as-true-as-the-gospel

Maybe Navidad has found he can experience this among different Christian faiths than his own.

It is all interpretation anyway, so if he is capable of interpreting his spiritual experience with the ward as satisfying his need to gather with fellow believers, how is that hard to understand?

Perhaps what England says about paradox and contradictions is relevant here as well and you mentioning that also contributed to me thinking of this essay.

 

Seems like the struggle of practical experience could be quite effective even among those who believe differently than ourselves…..One of the reasons I suspect we value missions so highly, whether proselyting or service.

It’s not that hard for me to picture how Navidad might be willing to adapt this in the sense of him being among those where differences extended into belief deeper than usual for someone attending our Church if the other choice was the lack of opportunity to practice the gospel among fellow believers as well as why being able to minister to, to serve that community was important to him.

Out of curiosity how did you react when you were restricted from your faith community during Covid lockdowns?  Did it make a difference to you in the sense you felt limited at all in the practice of your faith?  If you were in a town with no other Saint, would you consider attending another Christian community for some of that proving of contraries, participating as they allowed you to while remaining true to your own beliefs, of course?

Thanks. I love the idea of proving contraries. As has been said, "The opposite of a profound truth is often another profound truth." Personally I have no problem when I am in an LDS ward to say that "I believe the LDS church is a true church." Ditto for when I am in a Lutheran church, a Catholic church, or my home Mennonite church. The claim of truth for each is neither a contrary nor a dilemma. I also seen on contradiction in saying that each church is a mixture of truth and man-made organization (policies, principles, biases, and beliefs). That would apply to the exact same churches. In the same sense I would suggest there is no average church, any more than I would suggest there is an average school district (outside of actual data determinations of average). I also must confess I have never seen, in all my years of traveling and preaching a church (meaning denomination, sect, or group) that stood out about the others in the consistency, and manifestation of the Spirit over any other. If I had, I would have joined that one and probably brought down that level! (joking - maybe). I regret Dr. England's struggles with the human side of his chosen group, and admire his intellect. I am sure that Christ was pleased with him and his commitment whether studying at Stanford, working at a Lutheran college, BYU, or Utah Valley. I regret he was taken so young. Thanks for your always-thoughtful posts.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Sara H said:

Despite having studied the first vision, I am still at a loss to comprehend why members of the LDS church are so adamant about being labelled as Christians

What is your response to the comments of those of us Saints who embrace Christian strongly as part of our core identity?  Honestly, it seems like you have ignored them and are just repeating your (inaccurate) position you started out with (that Christianity was condemned in the First Vision), using your definition of Christianity rather than the one I myself have seen in much more common use by Saints in my experience, including by church leaders, as I already pointed out.  Here is another official usage:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/christianity-following-jesus-in-word-and-deed

Quote

To describe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a non-Christian church to any audience spreads a misconception that there is something other than Jesus Christ at the heart of the Mormon faith.

Quote

Joseph was instructed by God not to join any particular Christian religion 

This is inaccurate.

In the First Vision….the term Christianity or Christian were never used by Joseph or God, only “sects” and “professors”.  To read “Christianity” as a belief or category into those words is reading your own bias, imo (speaking generally here, I am not saying those who do so on this thread are the only ones who have done this).

I am checking through all the First Vision accounts and it is consistent with the History 1 version.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/site/accounts-of-the-first-vision

In fact in the journal 1835-1836, there is an entry where Joseph responds about “wherin we differ from other christian denomination”, which clearly shows a mindset by Joseph that we are a Christian faith and therefore part of Christianity.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-1835-1836/24#full-transcript

In this one, Joseph calls himself a “christian”.

In all accounts, if Joseph uses “christian”, he uses it in a positive way.  The only negatives he uses are to condemn some for “unchristian” behaviour (second link, “un christian conduct” and “un christian and unbecoming”)

I don’t see any inconsistencies between the way Joseph used “christian” and the way I and others who define ourselves and our faith as Christian use it save we capitalized it and he didn’t.

Quote

Why, however, are we so adamant that we first and foremost be recognised as Christians rather than Mormons?

Because we are Christians and most of us from what I have seen view ourselves as Christian from the beginnings of the modern Church, including Joseph, the one who received the First Vision that you claim condemned Christianity.

Edited June 17, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

This:

Quote

Why members of the restored church are hurt or offended that the adherents to historical Christianity won’t include the Latter-Day Saints under their umbrella of acceptable Christian sects is beyond me

Is not the same as this:

Quote

I am still at a loss to comprehend why members of the LDS church are so adamant about being labelled as Christians. 

Historical Christianity is not identical to Christianity.

It seems to me teddy is arguing against a position no one here is holding.  We are not wanting to be called Christians as a sign we are acceptable.  We (Saints who define themselves as Christian publicly) want to be called Christian because that is how we see ourselves (at least that is what I am reading here, please point out where I am wrong if I am).

 

Sara:

Quote

Since we are the only Christians who adhere to the restored gospel,

You call Saints Christians.  If we are Christians, why shouldn’t we want to call ourselves Christians?

Edited June 17, 2023 by Calm

[Navidad]

13 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Forgot this one. With all due respect, i don't know if you are fully representative of the non-lds christian world. I trust you to give a great explanation of your personal beliefs (as you have here)....but from what I've seen and engaged with, there's quite of few things about your assumptions and beliefs that are non-representative of the greater whole. As a fellow non-representational christian, I don't think that's a bad thing....if just means there'll be limits to what I or you can claim to be when representing the larger christian world. 

 

With luv,

BD

Of course I am not fully representative of the non-lds Christian world. I said I was being bold, bordering perhaps on ridiculous. However I will clarify that it was never my intent to speak for what every variance in what every single non-LDS Christian thinks is a Christian. That would be impossible for anyone to do, wouldn't it? All I was claiming to suggest is what the vast majority of Christians hold in common as shared beliefs, perhaps the 'fundamental principles" of a Christian. I am sure there are many other beliefs that are held, but not held in common by a vast majority. I do believe there are very few beliefs that the vast majority, as I said - 95% may hold in common about who is a Christian. I tried to list those couple of beliefs. It was my best attempt at answering a question I heard asked.

What else do you think is representative of 95% of non-LDS Christianity? What would you add or subtract from my list? Oh, and one last thing - I did not present my personal beliefs. My personal beliefs would differ from what I listed. I worked hard to word it in such a way that I was faithful to the task I was trying to accomplish. Certainly 95% or Christians are not creedal. Certainly 95% don't believe someone has to be aware of, or able to elucidate the doctrine of the trinity to be a Christian. The virgin birth? Nope. I would delighted to engage in a discussion of what you think on this topic.

Edited June 17, 2023 by Navidad

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I have always been in that position, so it wasn't much different, honestly.

I got my shots, got covid, more shots, and got immune.  That's life. Just another trauma to get through. Next?

All my life I studied philosophy in one way or another. Nominally Catholic but I invented my own religion, and then found that others had it too. 

Odd folks from Utah that believed in golden plates.    I sought for something that was logically perfect, meaning it had to be based on human experience, and emulating a perfect human ideal, because we are humans, and all we have as clues to ANYTHING is human experience.  If YOU have not experienced it, it is hearsay, fine for science, but not for basing your life on.

The legend or truth of this prophet or whatever called Jesus in the stories, fit the hypothetical ideal perfectly.

Then a Utah gold plate believer gave me a book that said I could talk to God, and even more unbelievably that he would talk to me.

No way.

Couldn't be, but I couldn't get it out of my head. But then I tried it.

Unspeakable life changing event.  Unspeakable, so I won't.

But then these folks are socializers also.  Uh oh.

Ward dinners. Go visit people. Listen to what seemed like babble, smiling through it.  

The idea that "fellowship" was important in following the Christ, was hard, and still is.

But now I am much better at it.  But to find a church because you like the people is totally foreign to me, because they call themselves xyz- in this case c-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n, is to me like being a space alien.

Unfathomable that anyone would do that.  To create clubs and meet on Sundays to make friends who also call themselves "xyz-ers" ?

What's the Doctrine based on philosophically?  What's your paradigm and how does your xyz fit with abc ?

That's me.

 

 

Yep. But it's not me. Is that ok with you? Will you receive who I am?

[Navidad]

9 hours ago, Sara H said:

I'm now in the middle of attempting to get some shut-eye, but my cats have taken it upon themselves to start World War III under my bed for some reason. Since I can't sleep, I figured I'd catch up on how the conversation has progressed. Here is what I'm beginning to grasp about the situation. The word "Christian" has one hundred times the weight of meaning for a non-LDS Christian than it does for a Latter-day Saint. I suppose you could look at it the same way that we look at the word salvation; to a Christian, the word salvation is of the utmost importance, whereas to a Latter-day Saint, the word salvation is secondary, coming in behind exaltation as the most important concept. Despite having studied the first vision, I am still at a loss to comprehend why members of the LDS church are so adamant about being labelled as Christians. At the time when Joseph went into the Grove to pray, he was trying to determine which Christian religion to join. He was not interested in Islam or Judaism; rather, he was trying to pick between the Methodist and the Presbyterian churches, along with potentially one or two additional Christian denominations. Joseph was instructed by God not to join any particular Christian religion since the doctrines of those faiths had become abominable, and the ministers and preachers of those faiths had become corrupt. Is there anything that has occurred in the previous two centuries that the Latter-day Saints can point to as evidence that Christianity has evolved and is no longer an abomination, or that the professors of Christianity are no longer corrupt? Since we are the only Christians who adhere to the restored gospel, I assert that our teaching maintains that we believe Christianity to be an apostate form of the true Christianity, the restored gospel. Since that day when Joseph knelt in the Grove and had a conversation with God, nothing has altered within the framework of Christianity. Is that not the case? If other Christian denominations like Baptists, Methodists, or Presbyterians decided to adopt the restored gospel, they could, and I'm sure God would help them and let them receive the same power and authority we claim to have from God. However, no Christian denomination has adopted the restored gospel, so nothing has changed in this regard. Why, however, are we so adamant that we first and foremost be recognised as Christians rather than Mormons? I just don't see why we're throwing in the towel on the word Mormon and putting all of our focus on being recognised as Christians.

In your understanding of the restored faith of the LDS Church, what or which beliefs are core or essential to believe? Joseph Smith talked about fundamental principles and appendages. The Introduction to the History of the Church on the LDS website quotes him as follows, "

The central message of this book is the message declared by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints since its beginning. Joseph Smith, the first prophet of this dispensation, taught:

“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.

So, as a non-LDS Christian I certainly adhere to the "fundamental principles" of your religion as your founding prophet noted. They are identical to the fundamental principles of my religion. I am sure we disagree on the appendages, but then there are appendages in addition to fundamental principles in every faith. I don't agree with the appendages of Methodism, or Pentecostalism, or Seventh-day Adventists (who are also a restorationist faith). My own faith the Mennonite Church, also believes itself to be a restorationist faith. I don't even agree with all the appendages of the Mennonite tradition. Thanks and very best wishes. Oh, and sometimes we have cat fights out on our patio, and sometimes cats are in heat. Oh my! What a racket. And our dog's reaction doesn't help matters either!

Edited June 17, 2023 by Navidad

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, Sara H said:

I'm now in the middle of attempting to get some shut-eye, but my cats have taken it upon themselves to start World War III under my bed for some reason. Since I can't sleep, I figured I'd catch up on how the conversation has progressed. Here is what I'm beginning to grasp about the situation. The word "Christian" has one hundred times the weight of meaning for a non-LDS Christian than it does for a Latter-day Saint. I suppose you could look at it the same way that we look at the word salvation; to a Christian, the word salvation is of the utmost importance, whereas to a Latter-day Saint, the word salvation is secondary, coming in behind exaltation as the most important concept. Despite having studied the first vision, I am still at a loss to comprehend why members of the LDS church are so adamant about being labelled as Christians. At the time when Joseph went into the Grove to pray, he was trying to determine which Christian religion to join. He was not interested in Islam or Judaism; rather, he was trying to pick between the Methodist and the Presbyterian churches, along with potentially one or two additional Christian denominations. Joseph was instructed by God not to join any particular Christian religion since the doctrines of those faiths had become abominable, and the ministers and preachers of those faiths had become corrupt. Is there anything that has occurred in the previous two centuries that the Latter-day Saints can point to as evidence that Christianity has evolved and is no longer an abomination, or that the professors of Christianity are no longer corrupt? Since we are the only Christians who adhere to the restored gospel, I assert that our teaching maintains that we believe Christianity to be an apostate form of the true Christianity, the restored gospel. Since that day when Joseph knelt in the Grove and had a conversation with God, nothing has altered within the framework of Christianity. Is that not the case? If other Christian denominations like Baptists, Methodists, or Presbyterians decided to adopt the restored gospel, they could, and I'm sure God would help them and let them receive the same power and authority we claim to have from God. However, no Christian denomination has adopted the restored gospel, so nothing has changed in this regard. Why, however, are we so adamant that we first and foremost be recognised as Christians rather than Mormons? I just don't see why we're throwing in the towel on the word Mormon and putting all of our focus on being recognised as Christians.

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

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

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

I need to see the quote to believe this. Too often it is read into it, as Sara is doing with the First Vision where the term is “sects” and not “Christianity” or there is a qualifier attached which makes it clear they are not speaking of Christianity as a whole or as a belief system, but a subset of that.

I am not saying such quotes did not occur, just that imo they were less common than many claim and that many of the paraphrases aren’t that accurate.

If by right up there you mean equal and not subordinate to Christ, I strongly disagree with you.  If by right up there you mean the prophet was seen as a spokesperson for Christ, I agree, as he still is.

Edited June 17, 2023 by Calm

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

I need to see the quote to believe this. Too often it is read into it, as Sara is doing with the First Vision where the term is “sects” and not “Christianity” or there is a qualifier attached which makes it clear they are not speaking of Christianity as a whole or as a belief system, but a subset of that.

I guess it was from reading from critics and the reason Fair had to answer these questions in this link:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_Christianity/Did_early_LDS_leaders_denounce_Christianity

[mfbukowski]

55 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Yep. But it's not me. Is that ok with you? Will you receive who I am?

Why do you care if I do or not?

I don't care one iota if you "receive" who I am.  I don't even know what that means, so I can't possibly "receive" you until it is defined, but again, why do you care?

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

I don't understand your way and you don't understand mine. Let's just honor each other's path and be friends. I would like that.

That's fine, but I don't discuss politics or religion with "friends" unless we agree.

That's called "being polite". A little hard here.

How do you plant potatoes? Just bury one?

If I bury a lemon, will I get a lemon tree? That seems to work naturally, doesn't it?

[Navidad]

13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Why do you care if I do or not?

I don't care one iota if you "receive" who I am.  I don't even know what that means, so I can't possibly "receive" you until it is defined, but again, why do you care?

I care because Romans 12:18 teaches me: "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. "  I would like to live peaceably with you on this forum. Is that possible? I am open to any suggestions from you on how to accomplish that Biblical admonition.

[Navidad]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

f I bury a lemon, will I get a lemon tree? That seems to work naturally, doesn't it?

I am not exactly sure what that means, but you won't get a lemon tree if it isn't nurtured, watered, and fed.