Worthy - worthiness; righteousness; and eligible - eligibility; and authority

[Sara H]

14 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Sara, could you please respond to my questions about how you define "Christian" over in the other folder (here)?  You keep using different definitions of "Christian".  I also asked that you provide sources for some of the things you claimed about the church wanting to not be any different than other Christian denominations.

There is not more than one interpretation of the term "Christian" that I am using. But I do believe that Christians who aren't LDS and Christians who are do have a very different understanding of what it means to be a Christian. To a believing Latter-day Saint, being Christian is secondary to being LDS and doesn't really mean anything as far as getting back into the presence of God after we die. However, to a believing Christian, regardless of whether the person is a Baptist, Methodists, Presbyterian, or whatever, being known as a Christian is tied to their salvation and means everything to them. Christians have a long history, spanning more than a thousand years, of being persecuted and slain for preaching the Christian message, and Christians also have a history of persecuting and killing in the name of God. Both of these histories are intertwined in the history of the Christian faith. They battled hard to disseminate the Christian gospel, which resulted in the current population of nearly 2 billion Christians when you mix the numbers of protestant and catholic Christians. Their history is rich. As you can see, being a Christian means an awful deal to those people because of the history of the religion. 

 

On the contrary, that is not our past. According to the teachings of our church, the True Christian faith was taken from the world not long after Jesus's death and the passing of the final apostle. Our restored Christian gospel was held in heavenly storage until 1830, when it was brought down to earth by Joseph Smith. In my opinion, this is a really significant point to take into consideration. 

 

Why, then, would you want to claim both the restored gospel Christianity and the Christianity that has worked itself out on earth over the past two thousand years? Now that the true Christian gospel has been restored on earth and has its own history, distinct from the history of Christianity, why would you want to do this? Because of this, I have a hard time understanding why members of the LDS church are so eager to be recognised a part of the greater Christian body. It is not part of our history but rather part of theirs. They should proud of their history, it was hard fought, but it's not ours, we shouldn't pretend that it is.

 

Let's play a game that might help you understand why I think it would be a bad idea for us to try to appropriate the history of Christianity so that we might be accepted by Christians. Let's pretend that in the not too distant future there will be a significant gathering at which thousands of Christians will gather to discuss the doctrines that the Christian umbrella of faiths ought to teach in the not too distant future, and that our congregation will be invited to take part in this discussion. On the other hand, we learn that there will be a great deal of disagreement and that individuals will curse at one another. There will be brawls, and some of the participants will end up in jail as a result of their actions. The police will have to establish a barrier outside the building until the conference is over because there is going to be a demonstration outside the building, and the demonstrators are going to throw bottles at the building where everyone is gathering. Since we are aware that this would take place, we have made the decision not to send any representatives to the meeting; in fact, we are the only religion that does not send delegates. Then, after a period of roughly ten years, come to find out that all of the fighting and cursing that the Christians went through at the conference was worth it because they are more unified than they have ever been, and the reforms that they adopted after the meeting have turned out to be successful. Then there is us, who come up and say things like, "Wow, that's great, we LDS are happy everything worked out, we are also a part of your success, where do you guys want us to sit, where's our table," etc. When we claim that we are Christians in the same way as Catholics and Protestants, that seems to me to be exactly what we are attempting to accomplish. And I'm not comfortable attempting to pretend that the gospel preached by the Latter-day Saints has anything to do with the history of the Christian church because it doesn't! Our Christian history on earth came to an end with Christ's death, and it didn't pick up again until 1830, when the gospel was once again made available. 

 

Edited June 21, 2023 by Sara H

[Navidad]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes, the "ordinance" is an EXPERIENCE you can ponder in your heart, as did Mary.

It is real BECAUSE it is a human experience, yet no one else can "have" it - they have their own.

That is why I kept saying that "our" baptism was different than "yours", because a vital part of the experience is the beliefs that give the act significance for each of us individually; every nuance becomes part of the experience and context/meaning of the ordinance itself.

I suppose maybe a Baptist might feel free from original sin as a part of the personal experience- surely that is important for Catholics as well- or feel "saved", while we may be thinking about becoming part of the family of Christ, or seeing the path toward exaltation to become as God is, now being open to us, something surely a Baptist would NOT be thinking about.

We of course do not believe that "original sin " exists, so we cannot be freed from what we never believed existed in the first place 

The beliefs about what baptism IS surely affects how we experience it.

So we cannot say that the LDS baptism is the "same" as the Baptist baptism because the experience will be different, if nothing else, and we cannot KNOW any " reality " other than what we experience.

Oh my goodness. We agree again! What is the world coming to? I would add two concerns that have nothing to do with LDS versus anyone else. First, having been a principal, middle school coach I have strong questions whether a typical eight-year-old of any denomination or group can process a baptismal experience in the way you describe, especially related to a complex issue like "original sin." That are many nuances to those words and they mean different things to different adherents. I may believe in original sin, but I don't believe it to be predictive or to be experienced by all individuals with the same degree of influence. I guess I believe in original sin with agency! I don't believe an eight-year old brain is developed well enough to deal with all you are describing to a depth much deeper than "I am making the adults in my life happy, so I am going through this. Now where are the cookies." I would say that to any LDS, Baptist, Mennonite, or person of any faith. Since baptism is not salvific for me, that adds a whole other dimension to it and the reasons for doing it. When I was baptizing I much preferred the applicant to be a mature twelve to fourteen year old.

Second, I agree with  your last sentence - "So we cannot say that the LDS baptism is the "same" as the Baptist baptism because the experience will be different, if nothing else, and we cannot KNOW any " reality " other than what we experience." But it seems to me that there are many who can't get their head around the reality that there are other "realities" than what they experienced or than what their faith teaches is real. That is true in broad areas of life. My experience in public education was x; another person's was y. Neither is normative . . . but very personal. That is where "receiving" comes in. You said you didn't know what I was talking about in using that term and Calm asked for me to explain it. I will do that today. Take care and best wishes.

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Sara H said:

There is not more than one interpretation of the term "Christian" that I am using. But I do believe that Christians who aren't LDS and Christians who are do have a very different understanding of what it means to be a Christian. To a believing Latter-day Saint, being Christian is secondary to being LDS and doesn't really mean anything as far as getting back into the presence of God after we die. However, to a believing Christian, regardless of whether the person is a Baptist, Methodists, Presbyterian, or whatever, being known as a Christian is tied to their salvation and means everything to them. Christians have a long history, spanning more than a thousand years, of being persecuted and slain for preaching the Christian message, and Christians also have a history of persecuting and killing in the name of God. Both of these histories are intertwined in the history of the Christian faith. They battled hard to disseminate the Christian gospel, which resulted in the current population of nearly 2 billion Christians when you mix the numbers of protestant and catholic Christians. Their history is rich. As you can see, being a Christian means an awful deal to those people because of the history of the religion. 

 

On the contrary, that is not our past. According to the teachings of our church, the True Christian faith was taken from the world not long after Jesus's death and the passing of the final apostle. Our restored Christian gospel was held in heavenly storage until 1830, when it was brought down to earth by Joseph Smith. In my opinion, this is a really significant point to take into consideration. 

 

Why, then, would you want to claim both the restored gospel Christianity and the Christianity that has worked itself out on earth over the past two thousand years? Now that the true Christian gospel has been restored on earth and has its own history, distinct from the history of Christianity, why would you want to do this? Because of this, I have a hard time understanding why members of the LDS church are so eager to be recognised a part of the greater Christian body. It is not part of our history but rather part of theirs. They should proud of their history, it was hard fought, but it's not ours, we shouldn't pretend that it is.

 

Let's play a game that might help you understand why I think it would be a bad idea for us to try to appropriate the history of Christianity so that we might be accepted by Christians. Let's pretend that in the not too distant future there will be a significant gathering at which thousands of Christians will gather to discuss the doctrines that the Christian umbrella of faiths ought to teach in the not too distant future, and that our congregation will be invited to take part in this discussion. On the other hand, we learn that there will be a great deal of disagreement and that individuals will curse at one another. There will be brawls, and some of the participants will end up in jail as a result of their actions. The police will have to establish a barrier outside the building until the conference is over because there is going to be a demonstration outside the building, and the demonstrators are going to throw bottles at the building where everyone is gathering. Since we are aware that this would take place, we have made the decision not to send any representatives to the meeting; in fact, we are the only religion that does not send delegates. Then, after a period of roughly ten years, come to find out that all of the fighting and cursing that the Christians went through at the conference was worth it because they are more unified than they have ever been, and the reforms that they adopted after the meeting have turned out to be successful. Then there is us, who come up and say things like, "Wow, that's great, we LDS are happy everything worked out, we are also a part of your success, where do you guys want us to sit, where's our table," etc. When we claim that we are Christians in the same way as Catholics and Protestants, that seems to me to be exactly what we are attempting to accomplish. And I'm not comfortable attempting to pretend that the gospel preached by the Latter-day Saints has anything to do with the history of the Christian church because it doesn't! Our Christian history on earth came to an end with Christ's death, and it didn't pick up again until 1830, when the gospel was once again made available. 

 

This article spells out exactly how LDS teaches the opposite of what the traditional Christians teach. There's definitely a different belief, and that could well upset the original Christians out there. https://www.ldsliving.com/one-phrase-lds-scripture-adds-to-the-fall-that-changes-our-entire-understanding-of-adam-and-eve/s/87392

ETA: in the article there is this, too bad the leaders didn't think this way when they kept blacks from holding the Priesthood.  “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression” (A of F 1:2; cf. Moses 6:54). See Article of Faith 2.

ETA again: But I'm thrilled that Pres Nelson said the following and this is the church's thought process because I seriously believe in the Bible because Eve partook of the fruit, women have been put as second class citizens and have been abused in all ways because of it. 

President Russell M. Nelson taught, “We and all mankind are forever blessed because of Eve’s great courage and wisdom. By partaking of the fruit first, she did what needed to be done. Adam was wise enough to do likewise” (34).

 

Edited June 21, 2023 by Tacenda

[Rain]

5 hours ago, Sara H said:

There is not more than one interpretation of the term "Christian" that I am using. But I do believe that Christians who aren't LDS and Christians who are do have a very different understanding of what it means to be a Christian. To a believing Latter-day Saint, being Christian is secondary to being LDS and doesn't really mean anything as far as getting back into the presence of God after we die.

Any Latter-day Saint who feels this way has missed the entire point of the religion. Afterall, there were Christians at the time of Christ. There were even Christians before Christ in the Americas. The belief is that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is just the modern component of God's organization. The restored part in the latter days.  

5 hours ago, Sara H said:

However, to a believing Christian, regardless of whether the person is a Baptist, Methodists, Presbyterian, or whatever, being known as a Christian is tied to their salvation and means everything to them.

Not quite true.  It is not being known as Christian that is tied to their salvation  it is actually being Christian that is tied to their salvation 

Which is true of Latter-day Saints. The church is set up with Christ as the center. Being Christian is tied to a Latter-day Saints salvation.  

5 hours ago, Sara H said:

Christians have a long history, spanning more than a thousand years, of being persecuted and slain for preaching the Christian message, and Christians also have a history of persecuting and killing in the name of God. Both of these histories are intertwined in the history of the Christian faith. They battled hard to disseminate the Christian gospel, which resulted in the current population of nearly 2 billion Christians when you mix the numbers of protestant and catholic Christians. Their history is rich. As you can see, being a Christian means an awful deal to those people because of the history of the religion. 

 

On the contrary, that is not our past. According to the teachings of our church, the True Christian faith was taken from the world not long after Jesus's death and the passing of the final apostle. Our restored Christian gospel was held in heavenly storage until 1830, when it was brought down to earth by Joseph Smith. In my opinion, this is a really significant point to take into consideration. 

 

Why, then, would you want to claim both the restored gospel Christianity and the Christianity that has worked itself out on earth over the past two thousand years? Now that the true Christian gospel has been restored on earth and has its own history, distinct from the history of Christianity, why would you want to do this? Because of this, I have a hard time understanding why members of the LDS church are so eager to be recognised a part of the greater Christian body. It is not part of our history but rather part of theirs. They should proud of their history, it was hard fought, but it's not ours, we shouldn't pretend that it is.

But it is. And if you have read the Ensign and conference talks and church manuals you see it is part of the church's history.  The church just views it in a different way.

5 hours ago, Sara H said:

 

Let's play a game that might help you understand why I think it would be a bad idea for us to try to appropriate the history of Christianity so that we might be accepted by Christians. Let's pretend that in the not too distant future there will be a significant gathering at which thousands of Christians will gather to discuss the doctrines that the Christian umbrella of faiths ought to teach in the not too distant future, and that our congregation will be invited to take part in this discussion. On the other hand, we learn that there will be a great deal of disagreement and that individuals will curse at one another. There will be brawls, and some of the participants will end up in jail as a result of their actions. The police will have to establish a barrier outside the building until the conference is over because there is going to be a demonstration outside the building, and the demonstrators are going to throw bottles at the building where everyone is gathering. Since we are aware that this would take place, we have made the decision not to send any representatives to the meeting; in fact, we are the only religion that does not send delegates. Then, after a period of roughly ten years, come to find out that all of the fighting and cursing that the Christians went through at the conference was worth it because they are more unified than they have ever been, and the reforms that they adopted after the meeting have turned out to be successful. Then there is us, who come up and say things like, "Wow, that's great, we LDS are happy everything worked out, we are also a part of your success, where do you guys want us to sit, where's our table," etc. When we claim that we are Christians in the same way as Catholics and Protestants, that seems to me to be exactly what we are attempting to accomplish. And I'm not comfortable attempting to pretend that the gospel preached by the Latter-day Saints has anything to do with the history of the Christian church because it doesn't!

But it does! For one thing we would not have the bible without that history.  

5 hours ago, Sara H said:

Our Christian history on earth came to an end with Christ's death, and it didn't pick up again until 1830, when the gospel was once again made available. 

 

Except it didn't.   Taking only the Book of Mormon as an example it lasted for a minimum of 200 years after his death. Then add the parts of the bible that the church considers scripture which was written well after Christ's death.  

Edited June 21, 2023 by Rain

[Navidad]

45 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

There's definitely a different belief, and that could well upset the original Christians out there

 

45 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

There's definitely a different belief, and that could well upset the original Christians out there.

Perhaps it might be more accurate to say "could well upset some of the original Christians out there." There are widely divergent beliefs about the creation and Garden of Eden accounts in original Christianity. Take care my friend!

[Navidad]

18 minutes ago, Rain said:

Not quite true.  It is not being known as Christian that is tied to their salvation  it is actually being Christian that is tied to their salvation 

Which is true of Latter-day Saints. The church is set up with Christ as the center. Being Christian is tied to a Latter-day Saints salvation.  

Oooh! That is really well said! Also, I thought that there is no exaltation without previously experiencing salvation in LDS church doctrine. Am I wrong about that? Not every act of baptism on every person who is baptized by an LDS ordinance automatically installs salvation, does it? Is every single member of the LDS church without exception a Christian? Its not really that act itself that saves, is it? Isn't there some since of agency, sincerity, genuineness, etc. needed on the person's part?

[Calm]

16 hours ago, Navidad said:

OK. Then it is in my heart too as I renewed and remembered. I like the idea that the ordinance is in the heart! That means no one can take it away from me.

The ordinance that you are participating is in your heart. This is not the same ordinance that Saints participate when they take the Sacrament because their experience gives the ordinance a different purpose/meaning than your own. This is not a bad thing, it is a human thing.

Btw, Saints may use “ordinance” to mean something different from “sacrament” (meaning sacred ritual here).  Some Saints who have not had the opportunity to participate in interfaith communication or study wouldn’t call others’ Eucharist rituals or other Sacraments of Marriage, etc “ordinances” in my experience. Ordained means being set apart to us and an ordinance is a ritual that has been set apart by God, ordained by God to fulfill a certain purpose.  So some Saints might accept calling your experience taking the Sacrament as a sacred ceremony for you, but they might balk calling your experience participating in an ordinance because they don’t see your experience as the specific intended, appointed by God ritual.  So that might cause confusion.  I would suggest using “personal sacred ceremony” if it appears someone is resistant to your use of “ordinance” to describe what you experience when you partake of the bread and water that is part of the LDS Sacrament.

If a person who is not an American and who doesn’t want to be an American and has no intent to go through the citizen process stands up and and maybe even puts their hand on their heart during the Pledge of Allegiance for the American Flag, they may very likely mean something different in their action than the Americans around them. That doesn’t mean the action isn’t very meaningful to them.  Perhaps it is an expression of respect and/or gratitude for help from Americans, for example.  (This example occurred to me because I had Canadian roommates at BYU and I had a discussion about what they did during the nightly playing of the anthem and lowering of the flag. Some Canadians stopped because they saw it as part of belonging to BYU, but not in anyway committing to the republic.) But it is not a pledge of allegiance to the country, the United States, which is what the Pledge is intended for. 

Another example might be the Oath of Allegiance that is given when someone becomes a new citizen. If it is not performed by a government appointee in an approved by the government setting it does not have the same meaning of citizenship and if it is not performed by someone who has fulfilled the requirements for naturalization and who has been approved for naturalization, it isn’t being used for the purpose it was created for. But perhaps a new immigrant might recite it on their own as a sign of sincere intent or a family member of a new citizen recites it at the same time as they watch their loved one take it because they have been practicing at home   with them and it is a sign of support. 
 

Humans give meaning to everything they do. Sometimes it is a meaning shared with others in their community, sometimes it is not shared even if intended by one or some members of that community (parents might have a yearly family gathering as a sign of family community/loyalty, one of their children might come because it is the only time they easily see their siblings and their siblings’ kids, but they have issues with their parents and have mentally and emotionally distanced themselves from associating/belonging to the parents and the family in that sense).

Edited June 21, 2023 by Calm

[T-Shirt]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Oooh! That is really well said! Also, I thought that there is no exaltation without previously experiencing salvation in LDS church doctrine. Am I wrong about that? Not every act of baptism on every person who is baptized by an LDS ordinance automatically installs salvation, does it? Is every single member of the LDS church without exception a Christian? Its not really that act itself that saves, is it? Isn't there some since of agency, sincerity, genuineness, etc. needed on the person's part?

To Latter-day Saints there are three different meanings of the word "salvation". Which of these three meanings is generally determined by context although, in some cases, it may be ambiguous. First, it means "resurrection", which is universal, meaning all of God's children born into mortality (those who kept their first estate - Jude 1:6 and Abraham 3:24-28) will receive this form of salvation. The second is virtually universal. It means salvation in the Kingdom of God which includes all three degrees of glory (D&C 76:88). Only those very few Sons of Perdition who were born into mortality will not receive this type of salvation (Every knee will bow). The third definition of salvation is the equivalent to "exaltation". This type of salvation is reserved only for those who keep their second estate (If there is a first estate, there must be a second. See Abraham 3:26). Those who have received all of the ordinances of the temple and have endured to the end and inherit the Celestial Kingdom of God and will inherit all that God has.

I would say that in most instances of the use of the word "salvation", when used by Latter-day Saints, it is synonymous with the word "exaltation". However, in some cases, it can refer to either meaning one or meaning two.

Edited June 21, 2023 by T-Shirt

[Calm]

Never mind, I think I misread your commenr

Edited June 21, 2023 by Calm

[teddyaware]

52 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This article spells out exactly how LDS teaches the opposite of what the traditional Christians teach. There's definitely a different belief, and that could well upset the original Christians out there. https://www.ldsliving.com/one-phrase-lds-scripture-adds-to-the-fall-that-changes-our-entire-understanding-of-adam-and-eve/s/87392

ETA: in the article there is this, too bad the leaders didn't think this way when they kept blacks from holding the Priesthood.  “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression” (A of F 1:2; cf. Moses 6:54). See Article of Faith 2.

ETA again: But I'm thrilled that Pres Nelson said the following and this is the church's thought process because I seriously believe in the Bible because Eve partook of the fruit, women have been put as second class citizens and have been abused in all ways because of it. 

President Russell M. Nelson taught, “We and all mankind are forever blessed because of Eve’s great courage and wisdom. By partaking of the fruit first, she did what needed to be done. Adam was wise enough to do likewise” (34).

 

This supposed doctrinal differences that are said to exist between the traditional Christian view of the fall of man and the Latter-Day Saint understanding of the fall exists only because of inexcusable ignorance. The Book of Mormon makes it perfectly clear that fall of man is the worse possible fate that could ever befall humanity. The idea often propagated by misinformed members of the restored church that the fall was a good thing, in and of itself, is totally false. Like the traditional non-LDS Christians, the Book of Mormon solemnly testifies that the fall of man was a unmitigated total disaster. Can you imagine a worse fate than the children of men being cast into the outer darkness of hell forever, unavoidably falling into darkness until they become devils who are devoid of even a scintilla of divine light? The Nephite prophet Jacob spells out the total, irretrievably destructive nature of the fall in graphic language.

8 O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits MUST become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more.

9 And our spirits MUST have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light, and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness.

10 O how great the goodness of our God, who prepareth a way for our escape from the grasp of this awful monster; yea, that monster, death and hell, which I call the death of the body, and also the death of the spirit. (2 Nephi 9)

If the fall of man could have been reversed by a  mere pronouncement of divine edict, it would be much easier to view the fall as a net positive. But because the fall consigns all of mankind to an everlasting hell of endless misery, without the countervailing force of an infinite and eternal spiritual sacrifice of unimaginable suffering that had to be endured by God himself, the fall should never be spoken as a positive thing without simultaneously bringing into sharp focus the atoning sacrifice of the Son of God that mercifully transformed the totally destructive nature of the fall into a probationary state that provides positive outcomes for those who come unto Christ in faith. Because too many Latter-Day Saints are ignorant of the straightforward doctrines taught in their own scriptures, doctrinal conflicts arise with non-LDS Christians that create unnecessary doctrinal divisions.

 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Sara H said:

To a believing Latter-day Saint, being Christian is secondary to being LDS and doesn't really mean anything as far as getting back into the presence of God after we die.

Quite the contrary to this Christian who is also a Latter-day Saint. I am a Christian first and foremost. I want to get back to the presence of God because I am a Christian, a follower of Christ.  My membership and participation as a Saint is what is going to allow me to fulfill the goals I desire to fill because I am a Christian. 

Unless someone is at heart a Christian, why would it matter to be exalted?  One can be officially a Latter-day Saint and be seen as part of our community and not even believe in Christ (as long as they don’t make a big deal about it).

You keep making claims for church members that may be meaningful to you, but are not necessarily global. 

Edited June 21, 2023 by Calm

[T-Shirt]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

The Book of Mormon makes it perfectly clear that fall of man is the worse possible fate that could ever befall humanity.

Those verses are referring to our fate if there was no resurrection. They are not referring to our fate as a result of the fall. The Fall was and is a necessary part of the Eternal plan for our progression. It was planned for and carried out as planned. Our progression would have been stopped if the fall never happened. See 2 Nephi 2:22-25

Edited June 21, 2023 by T-Shirt

[Navidad]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

The ordinance that you are participating is in your heart. This is not the same ordinance that Saints participate when they take the Sacrament because their experience gives the ordinance a different purpose/meaning than your own. This is not a bad thing, it is a human thing.

If a person who is not an American and who doesn’t want to be an American and has no intent to go through the citizen process stands up and and maybe even puts their hand on their heart during the Pledge of Allegiance for the American Flag, they may very likely mean something different in their action than the Americans around them. That doesn’t mean the action isn’t very meaningful to them.  Perhaps it is an expression of respect and/or gratitude for help from Americans, for example.  (This example occurred to me because I had Canadian roommates at BYU and I had a discussion about what they did during the nightly playing of the anthem and lowering of the flag. Some Canadians stopped because they saw it as part of belonging to BYU, but not in anyway committing to the republic.) But it is not a pledge of allegiance to the country, the United States, which is what the Pledge is intended for. 

Another example might be the Oath of Allegiance that is given when someone becomes a new citizen. If it is not performed by a government appointee in an approved by the government setting it does not have the same meaning of citizenship and if it is not performed by someone who has fulfilled the requirements for naturalization and who has been approved for naturalization, it isn’t being used for the purpose it was created for. But perhaps a new immigrant might recite it on their own as a sign of sincere intent or a family member of a new citizen recites it at the same time as they watch their loved one take it because they have been practicing at home   with them and it is a sign of support. 
 

Humans give meaning to everything they do. Sometimes it is a meaning shared with others in their community, sometimes it is not shared even if intended by one or some members of that community (parents might have a yearly family gathering as a sign of family community/loyalty, one of their children might come because it is the only time they easily see their siblings and their siblings’ kids, but they have issues with their parents and have mentally and emotionally distanced themselves from associating/belonging to the parents and the family in that sense).

I generally agree with your comments, except in one way. The Lord's Table (Sacrament, Communion, and Eucharist) is not a unique, specific ordinance of the LDS Church. It is an ordinance of Christianity as a whole as spoken of and directed in I Corinthians 11: 23-31. Its method and manner differ, but its meaning, significance, and rules as laid out for all of Christianity in I Corinthians are common across the universal church.

Adopting citizenship stirs the same response in the one undergoing the service, whether it is US, Mexican, or Bulgarian.

I respectfully suggest that the purpose of the Lords' Table in Scripture is to commemorate His death, burial, and resurrection in remembrance of "HIM."- the atonement, and to do so in a worthy manner. If you add baptismal covenants, and I add my marital covenants, those are appendices to the ordinance itself as directed in the Bible. That seems completely appropriate and will perhaps create some different reactions in the heart of the participant - but neither can be the primary focus. If the LDS person or the Mennonite partaking in the communion service is not first and foremost remembering the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, then I question the Biblicity of the service. If you are simply adding on other factors, it seems to me that is similar to the Mennonites washing each others feet prior to the Lord's Supper in preparation for the ordinance itself. If you came and participated in the foot washing and the communion itself where the emphasis is on Christ's death and suffering, I can't imagine the meaning of the service would be different, nor would be the response to it in your heart. You would be welcome to add whatever other commitments you would desire within your own heart. I would hope you would do that in addition to the ordinance's primary Biblical significance. I hope this come across badly. These are simply my thoughts in reply to your comment. Thanks.

[Navidad]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

Unless someone is at heart a Christian, why would it matter to be exalted?  One can be officially a Latter-day Saint and be seen as part of our community and not even believe in Christ (as long as they don’t make a big deal about it).

Ditto in my world. That is why I never answer the question "Are Mormons Christians" with a one word answer. If you asked me "Are Mennonites Christians?" I could never answer with a one word answer. Ditto for every other faith. "Some are and some aren't" would have to be my shortest, yet still incomplete answer to that question when asked about any group. Ha, I would probably answer the same way if you asked me, "Are Christians Christian?" I have always want to write a book with that title! Maybe some day.

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, Navidad said:

The Lord's Table (Sacrament, Communion, and Eucharist) is not a unique, specific ordinance of the LDS Church. It is an ordinance of Christianity as a whole as spoken of and directed in I Corinthians 11: 23-31. Its method and manner differ, but its meaning, significance, and rules as laid out for all of Christianity in I Corinthians are common across the universal church.

I agree it is a parallel ritual that is pretty universal across the Christian faiths because we are all following the example of the last Supper and other biblical scriptures.  That is one reason I feel like giving the member who said you were pretending when you partook a head slap to shake some sense into him.  You are participating in a ceremony that is scriptural for you.

However, simply because we share the same root does not mean it is the identical ordinance.  My guess is most Catholics would challenge the claim that their Eucharist is not unique given their doctrine.  I am assuming they do not believe other Eucharists result in transubstantiation.

Quote

I respectfully suggest that the purpose of the Lords' Table in Scripture is to commemorate His death, burial, and resurrection in remembrance of "HIM."- the atonement, and to do so in a worthy manner. If you add baptismal covenants, and I add my marital covenants, those are appendices to the ordinance itself as directed in the Bible.

Somethings are not seen as appendices if one believes they were commanded to be part of the original ordinance by God as Saints believe the baptismal covenant is meant to be part from the beginning.   We depend on more than the Bible to give us the Word of God. He has reveal to us the meaning he wants us to give to the ordinance he gave to us. If that means it gets rejected as nonBiblical by some, so be it.  It is very scriptural in our eyes. 
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-and-doctrine-of-the-book-of-mormon-teacher-manual/lesson-13-the-baptismal-covenant-the-sabbath-and-the-sacrament?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/sacrament?lang=eng

Quote

Partaking of the sacrament is a witness to God that the remembrance of His Son will extend beyond the short time of that sacred ordinance. Part of this ordinance is a promise to remember Him always and a witness of individual willingness to take upon oneself the name of Jesus Christ and to keep His commandments. In partaking of the sacrament and making these commitments, Church members renew the covenant they made at baptism

 

Edited June 21, 2023 by Calm

[Rain]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Oooh! That is really well said! Also, I thought that there is no exaltation without previously experiencing salvation in LDS church doctrine.

Basically correct.  I'm not sure there is an actual one follows the other, but yes, you cannot have exaltation without salvation.  

By the way, you said something last week, which I can't remember now, which would be good to clarify. I think most non lds christians compare heaven to the celestial kingdom or exaltation.  I think that is not quite right.  Others think of exaltation as being with God, but lds define it more of being like God.  I think some of this gets confused because some members start telling about where God is and who in the Godhead can visit where, but I think that is very shortsighted and there is really no way to really understand what happens.  Overall, exaltation is much more than the heaven most christians ever think of and if they do they usually find it blasphemous (I think that's the right word, but I'm not sure).

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Am I wrong about that? Not every act of baptism on every person who is baptized by an LDS ordinance automatically installs salvation, does it?

Correct.

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Is every single member of the LDS church without exception a Christian?

No

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Its not really that act itself that saves, is it? Isn't there some since of agency, sincerity, genuineness, etc. needed on the person's part?

There definitely needs to be genuineness or sincerity. Otherwise the person is just a whited seplechure. 

Edited June 21, 2023 by Rain

[webbles]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Its not really that act itself that saves, is it? Isn't there some since of agency, sincerity, genuineness, etc. needed on the person's part?

I would say it begins the process of salvation. We don't believe in a single act that saves us. After baptism, we must continue to strive to follow Christ.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Oooh! That is really well said! Also, I thought that there is no exaltation without previously experiencing salvation in LDS church doctrine. Am I wrong about that? Not every act of baptism on every person who is baptized by an LDS ordinance automatically installs salvation, does it? Is every single member of the LDS church without exception a Christian? Its not really that act itself that saves, is it? Isn't there some since of agency, sincerity, genuineness, etc. needed on the person's part?

"Salvation" is not a "thing" for us- it is not an event.   It's not even really definable.  No magic words or feelings suddenly jump you over the line where one minute before you were not "saved" and in the next few seconds you ARE just because you had a spiritual experience.   "Salvation" for us is a lifetime thing- have you ADHERED to the principles of being in the family of God and shown yourself- to HIM that you are part of the family.   It is a lifetime PRACTICE- 

So that becomes part of the confusion.   We use the word "salvation" differently than other Christians.  For us it is part of a PATH- it is a private EXPERIENCE- like baptism- where you know you are part of God's family and aren't going anywhere else. 

But there is more- it all is a continuum leading toward exaltation.

For us salvation is a verb.  It is a process of life.  It is like "journey" which can be a verb or a noun.  "We are journeying to New York" sounds pretty archaic but it still makes sense.   Salvation is a journey.  When does a "journey' happen?   When does it end?  

In our hypothetical journey to New York- does it start with a thought- "Maybe I should go to New York"-  or is it when you are calling around to find the best flights- or renting a car- or thinking about transportation in general?   When you are in the airport- is that part of the "journey"?   When does it end?   When the flight takes off?  When it touches down?  Is the journey over when you are IN NEW YORK?  But wait- you have not yet gone HOME!   Are you still on the journey when you walk up to your house after the return?  Unpacking?

So for us the journey other Christians call "Salvation" as some kind of event that might happen at 1:42 PM on a given Wednesday- just doesn't make sense.  There IS no MOMENT when "salvation is installed" like a new pair of tires- it is a life long journey.

Again- as always-words and the tower of Babel.   Confounded.

Process philosophy is all about this- Descartes and his philosophical "ancestors" - became the "clockwork universe" and the alleged "Enlightenment" turned everything into film- as if film created a succession of scientific photos capturing "reality" as moments in time.   Heraclitus should have won over Plato- and all of this would have never happened.  But people like to think that they see "reality" when what they are seeing is "really" their own PERCEPTIONS of "reality".  Process philosophy sees the world in terms of the "stream" of human consciousness - Heraclitus' "river".  But that is hard for humans to understand- this I know well!   Is the table solid or a pulsating mass of atoms and particles with nothing between them?   We don't perceive it that way naturally, nor can we !

"Salvation" as a moment in time was really invented by Greek philosophy, if one sees the world as I do.   THAT was part of the "apostasy" - so called- which invaded Christian thought- really Jewish thought- was replaced by Greek philosophy.  But that is a different discussion. 

So now that we have a continuum- what defines progression?   How do we know who is progressing and who is not?  We cannot look into hearts but we CAN define "eligibility" which is what @Calm taught us so well.  Have you shown yourself that in your journey you are now ready to receive the priesthood?  Of age? --> Interview --> Judgement --> Permission to become a Deacon.  For girls, same structure, moving through steps of leadership as authorized; but note that these are ADMINISTRATIVE decisons- they are not even LIKE "Salvation" in a minute as an event.   The events reflect spiritual progression already received, and JUDGED by others to confirm "eligibility".  One must be "Called of God- as was Aaron"- by an eligible judge other than myself- Aaron did not decide on his own that he was "called" to the ministry as a leader!

"Being Saved" is up to God who is the only one who is a perfect judge- and because WE THINK we were "saved" at 10:32 Wednesday morning is OUR personal judgement of our progression- and God may agree or disagree!!

We are our own judges of whether or not we can call ourselves "Saved" does not work for us.   We might be a little prejudiced one way or another. 

And so it is not a "event" but a process for us.

We don't judge if we are saved, just as we don't judge our own callings an decide we are "called to the ministry" or not.   It is a process judged by others- one of "eligibility".

We must be "called of God as was Aaron"- through a judge of eligibility OTHER than ourselves.   God may reveal to US what he wants us to do in our lives (testimony) but eligibility is judged by others.   And for me personally I am not going to judge my salvation.

I might be a little prejudiced.  Heck, I don't even know when a journey begins- how can I know if I am saved or what that even MEANS? 

We just don't use that word, really, but everyone else wants us to.

 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I respectfully suggest that the purpose of the Lords' Table in Scripture is to commemorate His death, burial, and resurrection in remembrance of "HIM."- the atonement, and to do so in a worthy manner. If you add baptismal covenants, and I add my marital covenants, those are appendices to the ordinance itself as directed in the Bible. That seems completely appropriate and will perhaps create some different reactions in the heart of the participant - but neither can be the primary focus. If the LDS person or the Mennonite partaking in the communion service is not first and foremost remembering the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, then I question the Biblicity of the service.

I am answering this carefully.

I will explain my reaction to this, and is why I disagree. 

Every Christian "denomination" has their own interpretation of the Bible and discussions about "Biblicity" and you seem to be expressing your particular understanding of the bible here- as has been proven in Christian dialogue between Mennonites - Anabaptists- and Protestants and Catholics.   Wars have literally occurred and the Anabaptist side took the brunt of the punishment.   This is no news to you- you probably are among the best of the WORLD experts on the history of this situation.

I don't have to remind you about opposition by others regarding "Biblicity" throughout history.

I also don't have to remind you that Joseph Smith and arguably God himself, wanted to do away with such discussions.

I therefore respectfully suggest that LDS folks really are not bothered by Mennonite views which say we have problems with "Biblicity".

Hopefully this comment can be subsumed by the direction of the thread itself- that it is the EXPERIENCE of the believer that defines the interpretation of the bible- and not the dogma of others based on their own dogma.   We are trying to speak the same language for 5 minutes here. 

 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Adopting citizenship stirs the same response in the one undergoing the service, whether it is US, Mexican, or Bulgarian.

How could you possibly know that?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

How could you possibly know that?

My two in-depth personal observations….

Russians talked quite different about their country than Americans do in my experience (there was a different sense of “soul” as well as citizens belonging to the land rather than the land belonging to the citizens). I think I would feel differently about becoming a Russian than I do about being an American.

I know when I imagined myself becoming a Canadian—I expected and wanted to live in Canada the rest of my life—I felt differently about what that would mean as I did about being American…and honestly that was one reason I wanted to become Canadian as in some ways I felt the portrayal of what citizenship means by the Canadians around me and what I researched better matched my personal world view.

Edited June 22, 2023 by Calm

[Navidad]

5 hours ago, Rain said:

Basically correct.  I'm not sure there is an actual one follows the other, but yes, you cannot have exaltation without salvation.  

By the way, you said something last week, which I can't remember now, which would be good to clarify. I think most non lds christians compare heaven to the celestial kingdom or exaltation.  I think that is not quite right.  Others think of exaltation as being with God, but lds define it more of being like God.  I think some of this gets confused because some members start telling about where God is and who in the Godhead can visit where, but I think that is very shortsighted and there is really no way to really understand what happens.  Overall, exaltation is much more than the heaven most christians ever think of and if they do they usually find it blasphemous (I think that's the right word, but I'm not sure).

Correct.

No

There definitely needs to be genuineness or sincerity. Otherwise the person is just a whited seplechure. 

I am not sure what I said that you are referring to. I would mostly affirm that I think exaltation and sanctification share some common components. The distinction would be in us becoming "like God" instead of "as God."

[InCognitus]

14 hours ago, Sara H said:

There is not more than one interpretation of the term "Christian" that I am using. But I do believe that Christians who aren't LDS and Christians who are do have a very different understanding of what it means to be a Christian.

What Rain said above in response to your post was perfect.  There's nothing I could add.

But I did ask you for sources in this post here , and you haven't provided them.  You said "In today's culture, it makes sense for Latter-day Saints to want to project an image that is more Christian than LDS."  This is also why I asked you for your definition of Christian.  Since you say you are not using more than interpretation of the term "Christian", then what exactly is your definition of Christian?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

What Rain said above in response to your post was perfect.  There's nothing I could add.

But I did ask you for sources in this post here , and you haven't provided them.  You said "In today's culture, it makes sense for Latter-day Saints to want to project an image that is more Christian than LDS."  This is also why I asked you for your definition of Christian.  Since you say you are not using more than interpretation of the term "Christian", then what exactly is your definition of Christian?

I don’t believe she has answered my CFR either….which was to document any claims she was making in case that wasn’t clear.  I would be happy if she just started to do so from now on, no need to go back before the CFR was issued.

It does appears she just stopped posting in that thread.  A non response is a type of response, though I have to assume she read it.

Here’s the CFR again just in case she missed it.  I am requesting according to board rules for Sara to document her claims, such as 

Quote

To a believing Latter-day Saint, being Christian is secondary to being LDS and doesn't really mean anything as far as getting back into the presence of God after we die.

If she wants to say it’s her personal viewpoint, I am fine with that.  If she is making claims for Saints in general, especially leaders, it should come from the Church’s website.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75358-7-reasons-why-mormonism-and-christianity-are-not-the-same/?do=findComment&comment=1210152144

 

 

Edited June 22, 2023 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Rain said:

I'm not sure there is an actual one follows the other, but yes, you cannot have exaltation without salvation.  

This is still speaking of salvation as some kind of event or ordinance.  "Before" implies an event in time.

I believe there is no problem for an individual to believe that, but what is your church source which indicates salvation as an event "before" exaltation?

Let me help you. Does being annointed to become exalted help your case?

Even in that case though, it would only apply to women.

Next time you are in the temple listen VERY closely in the first 5 minutes where they now quietly verify the differences between the blessings men receive and those women receive. These promises were previously mentioned only in initiatories, so that only men heard the men's blessings, and women knew the women's blessings. Women are more deeply blessed than men.

99.99% of members are asleep by that time anyway.. Memorizing the endowment gives great blessings those who have memorized them.

Every word is instructive.

Listen for what is NOT said for men, but IS said for women.  One more huge blessing just slips right by for the sleepers