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

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

There is only one Jesus.  He restored a different view of Jesus.

Does it make sense to say there is a different Tacenda than you just because your family may not see your posts that much, so they don’t think of you that way while we see little of your being a mother, etc. so that isn’t the biggest side of you we think of when we think of you or speak of on here?

Don't have much time to post decently, watching my 3 year old grand daughter. Yes that's a better description. But do you think Joseph evolved in his thinking too? It started out more traditional maybe?

[Vanguard]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Well, that is certainly a possibility. But pretend for a minute that you have been a faithful member of what she calls "traditional Christianity" for your whole life. In that context and through that lens read again what she wrote. If I am part as a committed believer in a movement that has continually existed for 2000+ years in a continual crimson thread of the shed blood of Christ, and she deemed it the product of Satan, despisers of Christ, and pagan influencers, might you not be inclined to take that personally? It seems that hand painted signs on a street corner bother folks here. I understand that. And I condemn those signs Is it unrealistic to assume that her comments are the same thing with the same degree of offense to someone like me? Or, perhaps I don't understand your use of the term "misattributed?" Sorry if I misattributed, but what she said was highly offensive, and yes I know all about Hellenists, Isaiah Christ despisers, and certainly see Satan as an enemy and sometimes influencer in all churches, including yours and mine. Take care.

I don't think I'm speaking clearly enough. You attached my name to her comments - that's all. : )

[Navidad]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This quote is not about your question here, but here is what the church says about your questions.

You might want to ask the church first before you waste time with us yahoos on the board.

 

Salvation

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

I have been through the gospel-topics many times. I don't find them particularly helpful. You Yahoos are much more helpful and deeper, and as you know I can ask questions. Or maybe you didn't notice! 😀

[Navidad]

10 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I don't think I'm speaking clearly enough. You attached my name to her comments - that's all. : )

OK. I don't know how that happened. Sorry. Sorry also for the whine (with an "h"). You most likely didn't want to  and  certainly didn't deserve to hear that. I thought you meant I was misunderstanding something she said. My bad.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

There is only one Jesus.  He restored a different view of Jesus.

Does it make sense to say there is a different Tacenda than you just because your family may not see your posts that much, so they don’t think of you that way while we see little of your being a mother, etc. so that isn’t the biggest side of you we think of when we think of you or speak of on here?

I make a big deal of this because it makes it sound to me like Jesus as a person never existed and he is more like a character in a book and movie that I compare and say the movie Aragorn is a different Aragorn than the book Aragorn.

Well, I am sorry to make it sound like Jesus doesn't exist. Just that LDS believe in a different Jesus than a large portion of nonLDS Christians. Such as Jesus visited North America when he was resurrected and Jesus is separate from God, two different individuals and not God in human form. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Don't have much time to post decently, watching my 3 year old grand daughter. Yes that's a better description. But do you think Joseph evolved in his thinking too? It started out more traditional maybe?

Yes, I believe he evolved due to learning more through study, but also through additional revelation of course. 

[Sara H]

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well, I am sorry to make it sound like Jesus doesn't exist. Just that LDS believe in a different Jesus than a large portion of nonLDS Christians. Such as Jesus visited North America when he was resurrected and Jesus is separate from God, two different individuals and not God in human form. 

Much of what you wrote regarding the distinction between the LDS Jesus and the non-LDS Jesus is something I agree with. I don't recall the title of the speech, but Elder Holland explained in a General Conference address a few years ago how the Christian conception of God is incomprehensible. The fact that the audience laughed when he made fun of the God of Christianity, however, really startled me at the moment. 

[webbles]

3 minutes ago, Sara H said:

Much of what you wrote regarding the distinction between the LDS Jesus and the non-LDS Jesus is something I agree with. I don't recall the title of the speech, but Elder Holland explained in a General Conference address a few years ago how the Christian conception of God is incomprehensible. The fact that the audience laughed when he made fun of the God of Christianity, however, really startled me at the moment. 

I'm guessing you are talking about https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2007/10/the-only-true-god-and-jesus-christ-whom-he-hath-sent?lang=eng

[Sara H]

3 minutes ago, webbles said:

I'm guessing you are talking about https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2007/10/the-only-true-god-and-jesus-christ-whom-he-hath-sent?lang=eng

I believe so; I appreciate your help. 

 

 

[Sara H]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

This is like saying the history of the Americas before the establishment of the United States is not part of our history (the people of the United States) because we don’t claim the US was established on the foundation of the cultures that existed here and instead point back to Europe and Greece, etc.

Not even close, if that. The history of the American continents consists of nothing more or less than the history of the American continents, period. And the history of the American continent was not or is not relevant in heaven or on other planets, just as traditional Christianity is not important in either of those places.  However, the gospel that we believe in is what is responsible for the governance of worlds, universes, heavens, and gods. Traditional Christianity is only found on this earth and it doesn't have any power or authority in heaven or on other planets. 

 

Our gospel will be preached to those who are incarcerated in the spirit world, and those who accept it will be released into the spirit world's paradise. If one accepts a different gospel, then I don't see how something like that could be conceivable; am I right in my assessment?

 

In a nutshell, what I'm trying to say is that traditional Christianity is an erroneous interpretation of the eternal gospel, and that traditional Christianity is only significant to those of our brethren and sisters who are still physically here on earth. It's not nothing to the billions upon billions of our brothers and sisters who live on planets scattered across the galaxy in different directions. However, the gospel that we adhere to, which is known as the eternal gospel, is recognised everywhere, and it governs the activities of every god that has ever lived and will ever exist in the future. 

 

 

 

Edited June 22, 2023 by Sara H

[Stargazer]

On 6/19/2023 at 11:56 PM, Calm said:

I would add “for that purpose” for more precision.

There are different types of authority from God.  For example, parents have authority over their children given to them by God…or so I believe.  I think we should be careful about limiting others’ God given authority since we accept others can receive inspiration from God to act. I think it possible sincere ministers in other faiths who pursued their calling because they were inspired to help others may have been given some form of authority to minister to their people.

Good point.

[Stargazer]

On 6/20/2023 at 1:01 PM, Navidad said:

And the authority I claim was one conferred upon me directly by the Holy Spirit sent from the presence of God when I was ordained. You do realize that I believe that as fervently as you believe the tenets of your faith.  Can I prove my belief to you? I can't, so I don't even try. Can you prove your belief to me? You can't, can you? So we are both in the same place - faith and trust. I am willing to receive your belief; are you willing to receive mine? Perhaps the concept of receiving another's belief is as foreign to the LDS as worthy meaning eligible was foreign to me? 

I celebrate your genuine feelings of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. I am glad you have them. On top of that, your participation on this board has been a great blessing to all participants, myself included. And I believe your authority is genuine in the sense that it pertains to the Mennonite community, and whichever other Protestant body recognizes it. You feel that God gave you authority in your ordination. I respect this, and I believe you do have the authority to minister within the community that recognizes your authority. What I want to ask is this: was the authority conferred upon you directly by the Holy Spirit dependent upon the act of ordination? Or, in other words, had the ordination not taken place, would the authority not have come upon you?

 

[Stargazer]

On 6/20/2023 at 3:10 AM, Sara H said:

You don't know that the statement "YOU ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO CALL YOURSELF" is true.

Does he know that it's true? Can't say. But I can. A question: can anyone have whatever Godly authority he or she wants to have, at any time he or she wants to have it? Simply by saying so, or feeling so? This goes contrary to the scriptures. Paul wrote: And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. (Hebrews 5:4)

How was Aaron called? It is written: And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron’s sons. (Exodus 28:1)

In other words, God gave instructions to the Prophet Moses, by visionary revelation, as to whom the authority was to be given and how the authority was to be propagated. When Christ was ministering upon the earth, he chose from among his many disciples 12 men, and said to them:

Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. (John 15:16)

When it came to replacing the traitor Judas, did the eleven apostles ask for volunteers who felt "called" or hold a democratic election? No, they selected Judas' replacement using a means that they relied upon to ask for God's will be done. And at no time is it recorded in the Bible that any Christian minister called himself. Well, not legitimately, anyway.

In the 2nd chapter of the Book of Revelation, God tells John to write to the bishop of Ephesus to commend him in having discerned the fraud of some men who claimed to be apostles when they weren't apostles. And to criticize the bishop of Thyatira for tolerating the false prophetess Jezebel. The false apostles and prophetess had "called themselves." How do you think we arrived at a thousand different Christian denominations? From men (and women) who "called themselves," whereupon the ones who had already "called themselves" kicked them out. 

On 6/20/2023 at 3:10 AM, Sara H said:

Is it possible for someone who has attended the same Baptist church for half a century but has never been baptised to identify as a Baptist? And not just a "Christian"? Also, what are the steps to become a Christian? Is baptism a prerequisite for Christian membership?

Who can say? You have to check the individual requirements for each of the Christian denominations. Oh, it's a merry circus indeed. 

Personally, I consider anyone who believes Jesus is the Son of God and strives to follow Jesus's teachings to be a Christian. 

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

There is only one Jesus.  He restored a different view of Jesus.

Does it make sense to say there is a different Tacenda than you just because your family may not see your posts that much, so they don’t think of you that way while we see little of yourOn being a mother, etc. so that isn’t the biggest side of you we think of when we think of you or speak of on here?

I make a big deal of this because it makes it sound to me like Jesus as a person never existed and he is more like a character in a book and movie that I compare and say the movie Aragorn is a different Aragorn than the book Aragorn.

On the other hand, though I believe there is a LOT of evidence that the person Jesus of Nazareth was a real person who did what they gospels say he did- there is still another level here for folks who cannot quite muster enough faith to accept that.

There is still the Logical Jesus- another paradigm- which could hold that the person Jesus never existed, an irrelevant fact, as with all history about religion,  but still represents the IDEAL HUMAN God which we visualize as undertaking the pains and guilt of others and who will be with us during the worst of human experience- this IDEAL has been through it all and is our comforter.

Such a being can actually manifest himself/herself in prayer which you feel in your heart when you call upon your name for this "being"

I had such experiences before I joined the church- there was SOMEONE out there in the great beyond who comforted me when needed, and helped me make important decisions.   Even when I was an atheist, I knew there was such a ....phenomenon, perhaps simply in my brain as an evolved response to stress which caused the brain to seek solitude as an escape from stress.

This is often called, even by atheists , a "conscience" or little voice which seems to tell one what is right or wrong.

Science is also exploring the idea of a "God gene" - in inherited gene which turns people toward spirituality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene

Of course this can be seen in at least two ways- the atheists will say "it's all only brain chemicals" while the religious will see this as a God-created actual tendency to feel spiritual messages.  But both these paradigms can co-exist- yes we have such a gene which God gave us so we COULD learn to develop communication with our Father.

It's just two perspectives / - human observations and theories- about how/why such a gene exists.   Whatever we believe is itself part of how we see "reality"

But the importance of my view as I see it is that any way you look at it, scientifically and "logically", OR spiritually, in an LDS paradigm, either one works AND is justified by evidence and logic. logic.

So God Jehovah/Christ is our Father/Mother who is able, PERHAPS through the effects/affects of certain biological mechanisms, to communicate with us through our human brain, which is like HIS/HER brain, but in ways we cannot now possibly understand- 

Process philosophy and Pragmatism hold that what we call "reality" is the total construction of HUMAN experience, as experienced by humans

We cannot know things which humans are not capable of knowing.  There may be other "colors" out there that we cannot see, etc.  On the spiritual side though, spiritual experience IS human experience and therefore as "real" as any other experience- like say color.   This is where the notion of "qualia" comes in- far beyond this post.

So IF there is a God Being of some kind out there- as we can experience his communication through the "conscience"- another real human experience- He/She can communicate with us.- No- not a "proof"- but a hypothesis/paradigm which fits with observable data.   Such a being might be seen as a "Super Human" in some sense, since "SH"- ie: She/He AND "Super Human" - which I will now is able to communicate with us, but we have no evidence in our experience that SH communicates with other species.

So it might be justifiable to "hope for things unseen" like Heavenly Father and his Son Jesus Christ, as paradigms, and perhaps other Super Humans.

Regarding morality, first, Kant, to make a long story VERY short was able to deduce- allegedly by reason alone- that the greatest good could be described by what he called the "Categorical Imperative" which is essentially the Golden Rule.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

So now we have "Heavenly Father" constructed as one constructs any paradigm, we have the "Holy Spirit" communicating with us through the same paradigm, another Super Human as the Son of the Super Human as an ideal human example to mankind, the atonement as a comfort mechanism directly confirmed by perhaps something like a the organs created / evolved by the "God Gene".   Why possibly could it have evolved?  Because SH perhaps was able to manipulate rather easily, one environmental factor after another to lead evolution as SH needed.

Or not!    Evolution is not part of the paradigm- all that needs to be represented is the motivation for a SH to allow other humans to occupy the planet.  Why? To bring to pass the path to become like SH, as Super Humans.   It is all about the reproduction of his Race of SH in a sense.

So that is PERHAPS another paradigm for those who perhaps have a problem for the historical "Jesus" puzzle.

It was something like  my personal paradigm until I read Moroni 10:4 who spoke of such a Super Human speaking to us, who is a Super Human and the Ideal Being- the most perfect Human that humans can imagine.

But then I got clobbered by the Holy Ghost and found some missionaries to baptize me ASAP.

Edited June 23, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Well, I am sorry to make it sound like Jesus doesn't exist. Just that LDS believe in a different Jesus than a large portion of nonLDS Christians. Such as Jesus visited North America when he was resurrected and Jesus is separate from God, two different individuals and not God in human form. 

The question which remains for me is the necessity of 3 persons in the paradigm, as well.

I speak to only One who responds, and I have not seen biblical evidence of 3 really except in the story of Jesus' baptism.  Perhaps it is a model of the Perfect family unified by purpose and love, with perhaps Mary- Wisdom - as the Holy Spirit.

Why would the Ideal Human need assistants?

 

[Navidad]

11 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Good point.

I once had a managing director of a very vital department in the LDS church along with a number of those who reported to him, here in Mexico in my home for lunch. He reported directly to a General Authority of the church, to whom he introduced me on another occasion. I then served as the guide for their trip up to the sites of the mountain colonies and to Temple Hill. I was and remain very impressed with his Godliness. As we would say about special people, "He wore his faith." At lunch, I asked him if he would mind if I gave the blessing for the food. He smiled and said something like this, "Please do so, after all you preside in your own home." Perhaps that is something of the kind of authority Calm is talking about. He is now the Area President of a very important area of the church due to its strategic location of political importance in the United States. He was incredibly kind to me, knowing I was not a member of the church. He demonstrated love when we saw a man stuck by the road in an old pickup truck. I am not a prophet, but I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see him named a General Authority some day. 

He made it clear to me that he deferred to me, a non-member in my own home. He also during our 8 hours or so together took great interest in the concept of a "faithful non-member" at an LDS ward. We talked a lot about it between sites. Anyway, it was clear he believed I had some kind of authority in my home, even with a bunch of senior LDS execs who most likely had been ordained bishops, stake presidents in their own home locations. At one point he did ask me, somewhere between Garcia and Pacheco why we had not joined the church. I explained with things I have said to you all here. What impressed me was that he received what I said, no debate, no disapproval, no rebuttal. He reminded me so much of a Mennonite bishop and a Presbyterian local church leader, and one of your own countrymen , John R. W. Stott who I had the privilege to get to know and spend time in his home. Best wishes.

[Navidad]

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I celebrate your genuine feelings of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. I am glad you have them. On top of that, your participation on this board has been a great blessing to all participants, myself included. And I believe your authority is genuine in the sense that it pertains to the Mennonite community, and whichever other Protestant body recognizes it. You feel that God gave you authority in your ordination. I respect this, and I believe you do have the authority to minister within the community that recognizes your authority. What I want to ask is this: was the authority conferred upon you directly by the Holy Spirit dependent upon the act of ordination? Or, in other words, had the ordination not taken place, would the authority not have come upon you?

 

Thanks for your kind words. And ditto, I believe your authority is genuine in the sense that it pertains to the LDS community. I also believe you do have the authority to minister with the community (the LDS) that recognizes  your authority. There is no doctrinal space between our respective positions there about the other. I have to answer your question with two answers depending on the exact nature of your question.

If you are asking about my ministerial authority to perform ordinances within my communities, then yes I believe it was conferred upon me directly by the Holy Spirit dependent upon the act of ordination. It was not granted to me by the elders of that group, but was granted to me by the Holy Spirit through the elders of that group. I am not particularly familiar with deeming that an "authority" or a "power," but I accept those as your terms for what I would deem the "right" to lead in ordinances, including baptism, and the Lord's Table. Whatever "authority" I have in that regard is lent to me from Christ by the Holy Spirit, through the leaders of my faith community. It was and is Christ's exclusive authority - He gives up none of it when He loans it to me via His co-personage in the Godhead, the Holy Spirit. It is mine to use while maintaining worthiness to use it. That worthiness is solely determined on a human level by the same elders and bishops who were used to grant it to me to begin with.

If you are talking about my other priesthood, a completely separate attribute which I would follow Peter in deeming the "royal priesthood" - the "nation" and "people" (all in the same verse) of Christ, that is what allows me to pray to, petition of, (certainly not "bind") Christ who then intercedes with the Father. It also enables me to proclaim the excellencies of Christ (the gospel). It is all about Christ - no person or leader of any church can grant, offer, or take away that priesthood from me The royal priesthood of the believer, which I would equate with your Melchizedek Priesthood (I know you would not, so I want to verify that) is that which I believe is granted to all with faith and trust in the Savior as redeemer, High Priest, and King - in fact the only High Priest left alive due to His unique one-of-a-kind resurrection.

I personally think He can grant that and only He can take it away" even permanently at the Judgment Seat (hence we can only come to the Father in this world and the next only "by" Christ. My faith and trust is in Christ, not in any church other than the aforementioned nation and people of Christ. In my idea of the community of Christ and the "true" church - it is that ekklesia - the called out (not in a Calvinistic sense) people and nation of Christ which in this dispensation is composed of people like you and me, and in the final dispensation will be composed of all those who Christ deems by His own criteria to be worthy.

There is much about that future that I am content with being uncertain. I don't know if Christ will deem some who were among His people and nation as unworthy for eternity or not????? By the same token, I am unsure about the exact nature of his criteria that will be used at the judgment seat for those billions who have never heard. We have metaphors, but they don't help shed the light with exactitude. Those things are way over my pay grade.

I own looking askance at anyone of any faith who tells me they have all that figured out with certainty in whatever group they belong to in this dispensation. There are most likely some with that kind of assurance and self-certitude in every Christian sub-group, including yours and mine. I hope I have answered your question. Take care.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I once had a managing director of a very vital department in the LDS church along with a number of those who reported to him, here in Mexico in my home for lunch. He reported directly to a General Authority of the church, to whom he introduced me on another occasion. I then served as the guide for their trip up to the sites of the mountain colonies and to Temple Hill. I was and remain very impressed with his Godliness. As we would say about special people, "He wore his faith." At lunch, I asked him if he would mind if I gave the blessing for the food. He smiled and said something like this, "Please do so, after all you preside in your own home." Perhaps that is something of the kind of authority Calm is talking about. He is now the Area President of a very important area of the church due to its strategic location of political importance in the United States. He was incredibly kind to me, knowing I was not a member of the church. He demonstrated love when we saw a man stuck by the road in an old pickup truck. I am not a prophet, but I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see him named a General Authority some day. 

He made it clear to me that he deferred to me, a non-member in my own home. He also during our 8 hours or so together took great interest in the concept of a "faithful non-member" at an LDS ward. We talked a lot about it between sites. Anyway, it was clear he believed I had some kind of authority in my home, even with a bunch of senior LDS execs who most likely had been ordained bishops, stake presidents in their own home locations. At one point he did ask me, somewhere between Garcia and Pacheco why we had not joined the church. I explained with things I have said to you all here. What impressed me was that he received what I said, no debate, no disapproval, no rebuttal. He reminded me so much of a Mennonite bishop and a Presbyterian local church leader, and one of your own countrymen , John R. W. Stott who I had the privilege to get to know and spend time in his home. Best wishes.

I feel like this is most or many men I've gotten the opportunity to have known all my life in the LDS church. I know I am critical here on the board with some very high up leadership or early church leadership, but in my normal day to day life of having been in a ward I've had many experiences as you've had with this gentlemen. And with many of the women too. I'd go back if I could but it would maybe be for the wrong reasons, such as social only. 

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I once had a managing director of a very vital department in the LDS church along with a number of those who reported to him, here in Mexico in my home for lunch. He reported directly to a General Authority of the church, to whom he introduced me on another occasion. I then served as the guide for their trip up to the sites of the mountain colonies and to Temple Hill. I was and remain very impressed with his Godliness. As we would say about special people, "He wore his faith." At lunch, I asked him if he would mind if I gave the blessing for the food. He smiled and said something like this, "Please do so, after all you preside in your own home." Perhaps that is something of the kind of authority Calm is talking about. He is now the Area President of a very important area of the church due to its strategic location of political importance in the United States. He was incredibly kind to me, knowing I was not a member of the church. He demonstrated love when we saw a man stuck by the road in an old pickup truck. I am not a prophet, but I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see him named a General Authority some day. 

He made it clear to me that he deferred to me, a non-member in my own home. He also during our 8 hours or so together took great interest in the concept of a "faithful non-member" at an LDS ward. We talked a lot about it between sites. Anyway, it was clear he believed I had some kind of authority in my home, even with a bunch of senior LDS execs who most likely had been ordained bishops, stake presidents in their own home locations. At one point he did ask me, somewhere between Garcia and Pacheco why we had not joined the church. I explained with things I have said to you all here. What impressed me was that he received what I said, no debate, no disapproval, no rebuttal. He reminded me so much of a Mennonite bishop and a Presbyterian local church leader, and one of your own countrymen , John R. W. Stott who I had the privilege to get to know and spend time in his home. Best wishes.

This sounds like "presiding authority" which is not strictly priesthood based.  A parent always presides in their home.  Doesn't matter if they have the priesthood.  In LDS church meetings, the person that presides depends on things but also isn't always dependent on priesthood authority.  In the Primary, the Primary president (who is a woman and thus doesn't have the priesthood) presides even though some of the teachers may be men and have the priesthood.

And with blessings on the food, we accept anyone's prayer.  Same with all other prayers that are not related to an ordinance.

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, webbles said:

This sounds like "presiding authority" which is not strictly priesthood based.  A parent always presides in their home.  Doesn't matter if they have the priesthood.  In LDS church meetings, the person that presides depends on things but also isn't always dependent on priesthood authority.  In the Primary, the Primary president (who is a woman and thus doesn't have the priesthood) presides even though some of the teachers may be men and have the priesthood.

And with blessings on the food, we accept anyone's prayer.  Same with all other prayers that are not related to an ordinance.

Excellent reminder. And a mother always presides over her children before they are adults, even when some or all might be ordained to a priesthood office.

The patriarchal priesthood functions somewhat differently than the hierarchal/organizational priesthood functions in church.

[InCognitus]

On 6/22/2023 at 8:25 AM, Sara H said:

I've already described what I consider to be a Christian, but it seems that you don't agree with me. The apostate Christian religions, which were persuaded to remove many priceless truths and crucial covenants from their teachings, are what our theory contrasts with the true and eternal gospel, or true Christianity.

But you aren't really telling me how you define "Christian".  And honestly, you are using the same narrative as AtlanticMike did when he was posting as Truth Teller and RAD DAD, trying to portray "Christianity" in a particular way.  That's why you really need to provide a definition of "Christian".   And just like Mike, you still aren't distinguishing between "the gospel" and "the fullness of the gospel".

And you still haven't provided the references I requested in the post here.  I'm making this a CFR.  Can you provide any official Latter-day Saint source that attempts to claim there are no differences between Latter-day Saints and other Christian denominations, as you were trying to claim in the posts preceding my response on that thread?

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

He made it clear to me that he deferred to me, a non-member in my own home.

This is always standard operating procedure.

A boy from Utah with a black badge would have done the same.

[Sara H]

50 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

But you aren't really telling me how you define "Christian".  And honestly, you are using the same narrative as AtlanticMike did when he was posting as Truth Teller and RAD DAD, trying to portray "Christianity" in a particular way.  That's why you really need to provide a definition of "Christian".   And just like Mike, you still aren't distinguishing between "the gospel" and "the fullness of the gospel".

And you still haven't provided the references I requested in the post here.  I'm making this a CFR.  Can you provide any official Latter-day Saint source that attempts to claim there are no differences between Latter-day Saints and other Christian denominations, as you were trying to claim in the posts preceding my response on that thread?

You are essentially pestering me about a conversation that is taking on in a different thread, and I believe this is the second time you have done so. Since I was requested for a CFR, I haven't posted in that thread, and I'm currently waiting for a response from the moderators and then I will do so. I believe that I have provided everything that I need to submit to answer your CFR. And now you're incorrectly pronouncing my gender and calling me names that only God can interpret because I disagree with your evaluation of Traditional Christianity. I'm more of a Bruce McConkie and Boyd K. Packer Latter-day Saint, and I'm coming to the conclusion that this board is against the traditions that many Latter-day Saints actually value about the church. Proceed as though you are a Christian if that is what you want to be called. However, according to me and a good number of other Latter-day Saints that I know, traditional Christianity does not in any way represent the Everlasting gospel, and both our teaching and the first vision confirm that I am accurate in saying this. I am going to report you for harassing me.

[InCognitus]

11 minutes ago, Sara H said:

You are essentially pestering me about a conversation that is taking on in a different thread, and I believe this is the second time you have done so. Since I was requested for a CFR, I haven't posted in that thread, and I'm currently waiting for a response from the moderators and then I will do so. I believe that I have provided everything that I need to submit to answer your CFR. And now you're incorrectly pronouncing my gender and calling me names that only God can interpret because I disagree with your evaluation of Traditional Christianity. I'm more of a Bruce McConkie and Boyd K. Packer Latter-day Saint, and I'm coming to the conclusion that this board is against the traditions that many Latter-day Saints actually value about the church. Proceed as though you are a Christian if that is what you want to be called. However, according to me and a good number of other Latter-day Saints that I know, traditional Christianity does not in any way represent the Everlasting gospel, and both our teaching and the first vision confirm that I am accurate in saying this. I am going to report you for harassing me.

I didn't say anything about your gender.  All I did was say you are promoting the same narrative as AtlanticMike.  If you don't have anything to back up my request for the CFR then just say so.  You were making assertions about the church trying to portray itself as no different than other Christians and you never provided any sources for that (and still haven't). 

[MiserereNobis]

On 6/21/2023 at 12:40 PM, Navidad said:

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.

The Catholic Eucharist is rooted in transubstantiation and the Real Presence of Christ. This is of utmost importance in Catholicism. This belief is not common across the universal church and Catholics do not believe that communion in a church without valid orders is a valid sacrament. It goes much deeper than "method and manner." I know you disagree with this, but it is the teaching of the Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination in the world, so if one is speaking of the universal church, one must take into account Catholicism.

This is one of the reasons why communion is closed in Catholicism. One of the purposes of communion is to be a symbol of unity and non-Catholics are not unified with the Catholic Church and hence are not permitted to receive communion.