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

[Nemesis]

On 6/23/2023 at 9:34 AM, 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.

Wat? There is nothing pending from ya. 

[InCognitus]

9 hours ago, Sara H said:

I've shown, of course, that the church is trying to be more Christian than LDS.

You have asserted your opinion repeatedly, but you haven't provided any official church statement or teaching that backs up these claims you made:

•  "In today's culture, it makes sense for Latter-day Saints to want to project an image that is more Christian than LDS"
• "[T]he brethren [of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints] are making an effort to conceal the gospel by waving the flag of Christianity in front of it in order to avoid direct attacks from opponents".  

That was why I made this a CFR.  Do you have any references that support your claims above, or not?   Provide the sources, or retract your claims.

And if you have "shown.. that the church is trying to be more Christian than LDS" then show us where you have provided sources for that.

9 hours ago, Sara H said:

If you look back over the last 30 to 40 years, you can see that Mormon society has been getting less and less important and trying to look more "Christian." The best way to figure out where LDS society is going is to look at how the Community of Christ branch of Latter Day Saintsism has changed over the past 50 years.

I'm sure you realize that there's a difference between "society" (or culture) and doctrine.  So if you mean that Mormon men and women no longer wear pioneer dress and no longer push handcarts when they need to relocate, then you'd be right about that.  But that's not about trying to "look more 'Christian'" (whatever that means).

9 hours ago, Sara H said:

We are going in the same direction as them, but 30 to 40 years later in terms of how our  policies and doctrines change. If you don't believe me, all you have to do is look at the changes in the For Strength of Youth pamphlet to see what I mean. Gone are the modesty rules based on gender, the bans on tattoos and piercings, and much of the language used to "shame" people has been changed to be more "inclusive." Changes like this will continue to happen until the LDS society is the same as that of every other traditional Christian church. 

Again, Rain has responded to this adequately, but I will add a few of my own thoughts.

The approach of the For the Strength of Youth manual has changed from the letter of the law (i.e. "follow this list of rules because we are spelling everything out for you"), to the Spirit of the law "I will make good choices because I love the Savior and desire to follow the Spirit, having the law written in our hearts".  This is what the new covenant is supposed to be about:  "I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people." (Jeremiah 31:33)  This is the higher law.  This is a good thing, and it isn't watering down the doctrines and standards of the church, it is raising the bar to a new level.

If you don't believe me, read or listen to Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf's  October 2022 General Conference talk on the new For The Strength of Youth manual.

And, listen to (or read the transcript of) the podcast on the purpose of the new guide on the Church News website:  Episode 106: The Young Men general presidency on how the new ‘For the Strength of the Youth’ guide helps youth choose Christ. 

"This episode of the Church News podcast features the Church’s Young Men general presidency, President Steven J. Lund and his counselors, Brother Ahmad S. Corbitt and Brother Bradley R. Wilcox. The presidency talks about the new guide, Latter-day Saint For the Strength of the Youth conferences, and the Church’s 2023 youth theme, 'I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.'"

Some of the comments from the podcast that are relevant to your assertions are as follows:

Quote

 

President Steven J. Lund:  ... When people first look at it [the 2022 edition of For the Strength of Youth], they can see that there are some major differences. And of course, if there weren’t going to be differences, we wouldn’t have done a new guide, but those differences come around a theme that we should be used to in the Church, by now, and that is that we’re moving to a higher and holier way, where the guidance that we receive from the brethren, from the Church, from each other, is less prescriptive and more spiritually-based. We’re being asked to, you know, not look to somebody else to decide what our standard should be, but recognizing the weight of membership and the weight of holiness that belongs to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will by itself prescribe how we behave and how we are, how we dress and how we comport ourselves.

Brother Bradley R. Wilcox: We’ve seen this same shift in other things, like ministering, in the way that we are being taught to keep the Sabbath day holy. We’re seeing this same shift in the missionary handbook. And over and over, you can see that President Nelson and the others who lead us are trying to lift us from a law of Moses, preparatory situation, into something that allows us to live a higher law.

Brother Ahmad S. Corbitt: And I think it’s just natural. I mean, President Nelson said, you know, “My dear younger brothers and sisters, you are among the best the Lord has ever sent to this world.” He said, “You have the capacity to be smarter and wiser and have more impact on the world than any previous generation.” And this is a natural result of that. 

 

In Elder Uchtdorf's General Conference talk, he said "Jesus Christ is the strength of youth.  So the purpose of For the Strength of Youth is to point you to Him. It teaches you eternal truths of His restored gospel—truths about who you are, who He is, and what you can accomplish with His strength. It teaches you how to make righteous choices based on those eternal truths."

So, if we are taught to make choices based on these eternal truths and based on our love for the Savior, then we don't need to be told a list of rules of what to do and what not to do.  It's already in our heart.  This is not watering things down, it's not to make us more like other Christian groups.  It's to teach us to make our choices based on our love for the Savior instead of a black and white list of rules.

9 hours ago, Sara H said:

Over the next 30 years, you will see that the church's policies and beliefs will change, making the church seem more open and accepting. This will make the church seem like any other group. The church will no longer stand out in any way. We used to take pride in standing out.

Look up the difference between "standing out" and "standing apart".  Navidad has already pointed out this difference and mentioned that the church is "standing apart" and not "standing out".   To "stand out" means you are doing what everyone else is doing but maybe better.  To "stand apart" means to do what no one else is doing.  The church has not changed its standards.  We are not trying to blend in with other churches (I provided a huge list of references that show the church has always pointed out our distinct doctrines when we point out that we are Christians). 

[Sara H]

33 minutes ago, Nemesis said:

Wat? There is nothing pending from ya. 

At the bottom of the front page there's a link that says Contact Us. That's what I used. Is there another link?

[CV75]

On 6/19/2023 at 4:57 PM, Navidad said:

Just yesterday, buried on page 18 of another thread, Calm mentioned something that has had me thinking ever since. I want to learn a bit more about it, but don't want to hijack that thread. Calm says many important and wise things in her posts (in my opinion), but this is a humdinger, at least for me in my attempt to understand all-things-LDS. I would simply like to hear more from her and possibly from the rest of you as well.

In a reply to another poster she said, "We (Saints) unfortunately use “worthy” as equivalent to “eligible” as well as “being righteous”, which causes a great deal of confusion, imo.  Both nonmembers and females are not eligible to perform ordinances because we are not eligible to hold the office of priesthood."  I found these two brief sentences very enlightening and interesting.

I have never thought of equating being worthy with being eligible. I have always thought of worthy in the sense of righteous or having sufficient spiritual weight or righteousness. The word axios is used more than forty times in the New Testament. It is used in both the positive and negative connotation - worthy and not worthy (unworthy).

Now Calm has introduced (to me) a new use of the word worthy, that of being eligible or in the reverse, being ineligible. When a Saint says to me "You are not worthy perform an ordinance" in our church, that says to me, you are not "axios" enough - not weighty enough, don't have the necessary righteousness as does a member of the LDS Church. On the other hand if my LDS priest-holding friend said to me you aren't "eligible" to perform an ordinance, I would say "Of course not, not in an LDS Church . . . . . just like you aren't eligible to perform an ordinance in the Baptist church." In that sense my LDS priesthood holding friend is just as unworthy outside of the LDS church as I am in it. We share unworthiness outside of our respective environments. These past five years, I have apparently been misinterpreting worthiness (weighty enough, or righteous enough) when it has been said in the context or meaning of eligibility.  Because of the eligibility rules in the LDS church, a woman is not "worthy" to perform certain ordinances or to hold the priesthood. That is not because she doesn't have enough weight or righteousness, but because she is a female and females are not worthy in an LDS context  because they are not eligible for the same. 

So, now I am wondering if I have been making the same mistake in understanding the word "authority." Is somehow the concept of authority tied up in the LDS mindset as "eligible" as well? If an LDS church member says their priesthood is the only priesthood with authority on earth, are they saying it is the only priesthood on earth eligible  to do certain things in an LDS environment? To that I would simply say OK, of course they are and move on. That makes sense because I understand they have no authority in my church environment either. But if they are saying their priesthood is the only priesthood with authority on earth, in all Christian environments to do certain things, then we are back to a different meaning than "eligible" specifically in an LDS context. I have authority to marry people under state law and under God's law as expressed in the Baptist church. But of course I have no authority in an LDS church, because as a non-member I have no authority therein.  And my LDS friend has no authority (eligibility) in the Lutheran church in the same way. 

So, what else can I learn about worthiness and eligibility and is there any carryover of the learning into authority and eligibility? Thanks so much.

When people are understanding and using words differently, leading to misunderstandings, an agreed-upon set of definitions are often helpful. I would recommend these:

WORTHINESS: “To be personally righteous and to stand approved in the sight of God and His appointed leaders.”Worthy, Worthiness (churchofjesuschrist.org)

AUTHORITY: “The permission granted to men on earth called or ordained to act for and in behalf of God the Father or Jesus Christ in doing God’s work.”

Authority (churchofjesuschrist.org)

ELIGIBILITY: “age and behavior requirements” in the application of Church Policy and Guidelines – sometimes worthiness is a requirement and sometimes not (see, for example, 38.2.9.1)

38. Church Policies and Guidelines (churchofjesuschrist.org)

Descriptions can then be shared as mutual understanding improves.

Edited June 25, 2023 by CV75

[Sara H]

11 hours ago, InCognitus said:

•  "In today's culture, it makes sense for Latter-day Saints to want to project an image that is more Christian than LDS"
• "[T]he brethren [of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints] are making an effort to conceal the gospel by waving the flag of Christianity in front of it in order to avoid direct attacks from opponents".  

There are dozens of cases that show how the brethren have come up with a new way to get rid of what I call the uniqueness of "Mormonism" in order to make the church look more "Christian." And the most clear example is trying to get members to stop using the word "Mormon." It took me a long time to realise how much Pres. Nelson's request that we not use the word "Mormon" affected me. Being happy to be a Mormon your whole life and then being told to stop using the word was very upsetting for me, and I don't fully understand why yet. And I know of other members who agree with me. 

Here's a YouTube movie that shows how happy and proud we used to be to be called Mormons. Do you remember when they were? Please explain how we went from using the word "Mormon" to sell ads, billboards, and movies about being Mormon to almost not being able to use it at all. Think of this video as part of the proof you asked me for about the CFR. Soon, I'll have more proof to show. 

 

Before you watch the video, think about this important quote. "He who controls language controls the masses." -Saul Alinsky

 

 

 

[Navidad]

12 hours ago, CV75 said:

When people are understanding and using words differently, leading to misunderstandings, an agreed-upon set of definitions are often helpful. I would recommend these:

WORTHINESS: “To be personally righteous and to stand approved in the sight of God and His appointed leaders.”Worthy, Worthiness (churchofjesuschrist.org)

AUTHORITY: “The permission granted to men on earth called or ordained to act for and in behalf of God the Father or Jesus Christ in doing God’s work.”

Authority (churchofjesuschrist.org)

ELIGIBILITY: “age and behavior requirements” in the application of Church Policy and Guidelines – sometimes worthiness is a requirement and sometimes not (see, for example, 38.2.9.1)

38. Church Policies and Guidelines (churchofjesuschrist.org)

Descriptions can then be shared as mutual understanding improves.

Hi my friend. You are absolutely correct in the need for an agreed-upon set of definitions to prevent misunderstandings. May I try  to do so with some different definitions?

WORTHINESS- That Which is the sole domain of Jesus Christ. He alone is personally righteous (worthy) and able to stand before His Father in that place. When we accept the reality and sufficiency of Christ's  atonement, He declares us to be righteous (worthy), even though in reality we can never be so. Being declared righteous is a gift God grants to those who trust in Him. It is a privilege that we can never earn  - hence it is a gift.

AUTHORITY - An eligibility lent to His children by Christ through the Holy Spirit. When speaking of it institutionally it is the right to perform ordinances and to spiritually and administratively lead branches of Christ's church. When spoken of individually, it is a power given by Christ through the Holy Spirit over the attempts of Satan to interfere in the work of the Father. Not all Christians have this gift. It is a special gift granted to a few.

ELIGIBILITY - See authority in its first use.

[Tacenda]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

I was mothering adults when I was 14…it is in my genetics as Mom did it and apparently her dad as well and my upbringing was drenched in it (Mom created a very little club when I was 9 or 10 for earning badges called “Mother’s Little Helpers” for me and my sister since at that time there was nothing in the Church for girls like Cub Scouts that my brother was highly involved in, so much so that he chose to decorate his room in Cub Scout colors).

Your mom was a genius!  (Mother's Little Helpers) 

 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Sara H said:

There are dozens of cases that show how the brethren have come up with a new way to get rid of what I call the uniqueness of "Mormonism" in order to make the church look more "Christian." And the most clear example is trying to get members to stop using the word "Mormon." It took me a long time to realise how much Pres. Nelson's request that we not use the word "Mormon" affected me. Being happy to be a Mormon your whole life and then being told to stop using the word was very upsetting for me, and I don't fully understand why yet. And I know of other members who agree with me. 

Here's a YouTube movie that shows how happy and proud we used to be to be called Mormons. Do you remember when they were? Please explain how we went from using the word "Mormon" to sell ads, billboards, and movies about being Mormon to almost not being able to use it at all. Think of this video as part of the proof you asked me for about the CFR. Soon, I'll have more proof to show. 

 

Before you watch the video, think about this important quote. "He who controls language controls the masses." -Saul Alinsky

 

 

 

I think I'm getting whiplash.

[Sara H]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think I'm getting whiplash.

Why?

[CV75]

14 hours ago, CV75 said:

When people are understanding and using words differently, leading to misunderstandings, an agreed-upon set of definitions are often helpful. I would recommend these:

WORTHINESS: “To be personally righteous and to stand approved in the sight of God and His appointed leaders.”Worthy, Worthiness (churchofjesuschrist.org)

AUTHORITY: “The permission granted to men on earth called or ordained to act for and in behalf of God the Father or Jesus Christ in doing God’s work.”

Authority (churchofjesuschrist.org)

ELIGIBILITY: “age and behavior requirements” in the application of Church Policy and Guidelines – sometimes worthiness is a requirement and sometimes not (see, for example, 38.2.9.1)

38. Church Policies and Guidelines (churchofjesuschrist.org)

Descriptions can then be shared as mutual understanding improves.

This is kind of the point (semantics and perspectives). I am suggesting a thought experiment: the agreed-upon mental state need only be a temporary attempt to relate to the mindset of the people you are trying to understand, beginning with most rudimentary step of adopting their definitions.

But if you would rather try to understand without doing that and ask someone of another mindset to instead explain themselves in terms of your mindset and your definitions (for the sake of discussion), I will try. Your question is, “So, what else can I learn about worthiness and eligibility and is there any carryover of the learning into authority and eligibility?”

Using your definitions, the question is about the relationship between grace and ordinance. Both are dependent and centered on the Atonement of Jesus Christ, His Covenant. As you point out, we are worthy before God by His grace, and authority is “lent” and thus also established by grace. Where authority and eligibility are the same thing, having the right to salvation comes by way of mutual trust and certain terms, or ordinances, formed and expressed by covenant. The complete or full covenant relationship is simultaneously institutional, communal and individual, as are the expressions of Christ’s grace in terms of worthiness and authority/eligibility.

Edited June 26, 2023 by CV75

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Sara H said:

Why?

The video, watching the two say one thing and the other the opposite, thought I was being funny. 

[InCognitus]

5 hours ago, Sara H said:

There are dozens of cases that show how the brethren have come up with a new way to get rid of what I call the uniqueness of "Mormonism" in order to make the church look more "Christian."

Ok, then it should be easy for you to provide sources where they are trying to do that.

5 hours ago, Sara H said:

And the most clear example is trying to get members to stop using the word "Mormon."

Can you explain how President Nelson asking us to use the actual name of the church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, instead of the nickname "Mormon" that was given to us by those outside the church, is an answer to the CFR on "[T]he brethren [of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints] are making an effort to conceal the gospel by waving the flag of Christianity in front of it in order to avoid direct attacks from opponents". 

How is calling the church by its actual name an effort to "conceal the gospel by waving the flag of Christianity" in front of others?   Do we have the gospel of Mormon?  Or the gospel of Jesus Christ?

This is not an answer to the CFR.  

Joseph Smith wrote:  "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. But in connection with these, we believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts according to the will of God, the restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth.   I published the foregoing answers to save myself the trouble of repeating the same a thousand times over and over again." (History, 1838–1856, volume B-1 [1 September 1834–2 November 1838], Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Three 1838–39, p.121)

Using the name of the church is not an effort to conceal the gospel.  It's an effort to promote it.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Sara H said:

There are dozens of cases that show how the brethren have come up with a new way to get rid of what I call the uniqueness of "Mormonism" in order to make the church look more "Christian." And the most clear example is trying to get members to stop using the word "Mormon." It took me a long time to realise how much Pres. Nelson's request that we not use the word "Mormon" affected me. Being happy to be a Mormon your whole life and then being told to stop using the word was very upsetting for me, and I don't fully understand why yet. And I know of other members who agree with me. 

Before I studied it, I thought that Mormons were some kind of weird cult which worshipped "Saints" that were American Indians.

I think it is brilliant that we now actually USE the sacred name of Jesus Christ in our recommended name usages.

Many people live outside of Utah, and have no clue what a "Mormon" is and really don't care about what they think are tiny weird cults.

It's a "uniqueness" that needs to go- we already have plenty of those to go around! 

Let me ask you what a "Moravian" is.   Is it a religion?  Do you care?   That was about where I was before I studied up on the church.

The Maltese Church?

And these are only some of the little known "M" names!

 

Edited June 26, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

45 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Using the name of the church is not an effort to conceal the gospel.  It's an effort to promote it.

🤩👍🏻

[MiserereNobis]

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Let me ask you what a "Moravian" is.   Is it a religion?  Do you care?   That was about where I was before I studied up on the church.

I lived in Moravia for about a year. My apartment overlooked the Morava river, which flooded like mad in 1997.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Let me ask you what a "Moravian" is.   Is it a religion?  Do you care? 

Absolutely. The Moravian Church is one of the earliest restorational churches allied in the early years with the Waldensians.  A peace loving and missionary-minded group they are. Rich and wonderful history, tradition and worship style. Like the LDS and the Mennonites, they now have more members in Africa than anywhere else. They have a wonderful logo - especially in its original design. All in Latin - Our Lamb has Conquered - or something like that. I grew up around Moravians. They founded and still have a seminary and university in Bethlehem, PA. Also lots of ministries all over North Carolina. Great music. Great missionaries. Great Evangelical testimony and witness today all around the world. It is a smallish group with lots of Anabaptist ties and had Czechoslovakia roots under John Huss. They are thought of as a restorationist group even before the Mennonites in the 15th century. I would guess at one time they were the dominant non-Catholic church in east-central Europe centered around Prague. Now aren't you glad you asked? Oh, and I just thought of one more common thing - they were kicked out of New York not too long before the establishment of the LDS Church for their extensive missionary work among the Iroquois people.

Edited June 26, 2023 by Navidad

[Navidad]

Wonderful short video of the Moravian philosophy of education. I love it!

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

Absolutely. The Moravian Church is one of the earliest restorational churches allied in the early years with the Waldensians.  A peace loving and missionary-minded group they are. Rich and wonderful history, tradition and worship style. Like the LDS and the Mennonites, they now have more members in Africa than anywhere else. They have a wonderful logo - especially in its original design. All in Latin - Our Lamb has Conquered - or something like that. I grew up around Moravians. They founded and still have a seminary and university in Bethlehem, PA. Also lots of ministries all over North Carolina. Great music. Great missionaries. Great Evangelical testimony and witness today all around the world. It is a smallish group with lots of Anabaptist ties and had Czechoslovakia roots under John Huss. They are thought of as a restorationist group even before the Mennonites in the 15th century. I would guess at one time they were the dominant non-Catholic church in east-central Europe centered around Prague. Now aren't you glad you asked? Oh, and I just thought of one more common thing - they were kicked out of New York not too long before the establishment of the LDS Church for their extensive missionary work among the Iroquois people.

Yes I know.  Do you understand the point of the post?

My children attended a Moravian church daycare.  Wonderful folks.

Edited June 26, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes I know.  Do you understand the point of the post?

My children attended a Moravian church daycare.  Wonderful folks.

 

Someone else posts that they lived by a river and you like it. I post a history of the people and you ask me if I understand the point of the post. The point of the post for me was that it reminded me of a people with whom I grew up. Wonderful folks, yes. Maybe that is the point of my post! Did you enjoy the video? Wonderful folks!

Edited June 26, 2023 by Navidad

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

 

Someone else posts that they lived by a river and you like it. I post a history of the people and you ask me if I understand the point of the post. The point of the post for me was that it reminded me of a people with whom I grew up. Wonderful folks, yes. Maybe that is the point of my post! Did you enjoy the video? Wonderful folks!

As always I like John Dewey and Alma 32 better, but he's going in the right direction 

[Nemesis]

On 6/25/2023 at 2:55 PM, Sara H said:

At the bottom of the front page there's a link that says Contact Us. That's what I used. Is there another link?

Did you get an email back stating we don’t check emails like ever? I should have an auto reply stating so.   I also rarely look at dm’s.  Pretty much what I’m saying is the rules should cover any questions and I’m a lazy mod. 

[Anakin7]

On 6/20/2023 at 12:48 PM, Sara H said:

 

Perhaps it's because I'm too old for the new age mentality of wanting to be more Christian than LDS, but I'm still not sure what your link is supposed to teach me. So you're suggesting that baptism is a prerequisite to Christian faith? 

 

Repent and be baptised, and the Holy Spirit will be given to you, as it says in Acts 2:38-41, which you linked to. Latter-day Saints believe this verse to be true when it comes to l

earning and joining our church, but it is untrue when it comes to the baptising of members of other Christian religions. Our belief holds that a Christian who was baptised by someone other than a man with priesthood power and authority does not receive the Holy Spirit. Is it necessary to be baptised into Christianity, and if so, does a baptism done by an unauthoritative man still count? 

 

No.

[mfbukowski]

On 6/26/2023 at 10:46 AM, MiserereNobis said:

I lived in Moravia for about a year. My apartment overlooked the Morava river, which flooded like mad in 1997.

Oh yeah-that was one nasty year for floods everywhere in Europe.  Especially in Florence iirc

Edited July 1, 2023 by mfbukowski