To understand Jesus words and behavior we need to understand Jesus himself first

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You still have NO understanding of actual LDS beliefs after all these years.

1 Prophets are fallible human beings 

2 Salvation and exaltation are two VERY different things, an IF ordinances really are required for the latter you have eternity to decide that AFTER DEATH when one might be a little, uh, "better informed".

3 You, like everyone but perhaps a few true "Lucifarians" are not even capable of being "lost forever" until you have received the "beatific vision" and deliberately and fully knowingly denied what you KNOW is true.

You are still not getting it.

God knows all about being human, because He is, and would never create the universe you are imagining when his "work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality (salvation) and eternal life (exaltation) of man".

He would be putting himself out of business, looking for ways NOT to achieve his goals, if we are to believe the stuff you state here.

Those are not our beliefs, mi amigo and brother!

Possibly not very far from where you live is an old building on the UCLA campus. It contains a theater named after a pragmatic philosopher/theologian Josiah Royce. I imagine you know his writings much better than me. Over the stage is a Royce quote "Education is learning to use the tools which the race has found indispensable." I have liked that quote for several reasons ever since I first saw it back in the early 1970s.

I have tried very hard to use the tools which have been recommended to me by Saints as indispensable to understanding the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints since 1989 when my journey to do so started. Two of the first books I was advised to buy back then by someone who is now a stake president,  were Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R McConkie and "The Miracle of Forgiveness" by Spencer Kimball. I was assured they were indispensable to understanding LDS doctrine.

Then another recommendation and another and another. I bought them all to serve as tools for my journey. Then I went to my first MHA meeting. Ignore all that, they said to me. The church is changing they said. Read Robinson, Millet, and Givens. Ok, so I bought all those books and devoured them. Mormon History? Don't buy Talmage or Roberts, buy Arrington, Quinn, and Bushman. Ok, so I bought all those books and devoured them.

Then we moved here and started attending the ward. We had home teachers - two highly respected men from our ward. They assured as they didn't believe this or that regarding certain church teachings, especially about LDS exclusivity. Then we became very close to a general authority emeritus in our ward. Wonderful Godly man. He consistently at 90 years of age, with a smile and a wink (he always reminded me of the Doc in Field of Dreams) advocated for us to serve and minister in the ward. He and his son-in-law, our bishop agreed and so we served and ministered.

I sat with Will Bagley and Michael Quinn at MHA meetings and listened to their stories. I poured over everything about Missouri, MMM, and the challenges here in the colonies. I learned and learned. And inevitably someone would then come and say, well that isn't the way it was! That isn't right! That's sacred history, not honest history and I began to discover The New Mormon History movement. Fascinating stuff!

Then I began reading all the old stuff, the writing and teachings of the presidents and other luminaries like Jedidiah M. Grant, Talmage, the Pratt Brothers, everything I could find about the Whitmers, Rigdon, Hyde, Zion's Camp, etc. Then I became friends with Sonia Johnson's brother. He gave me his Mormon book collection and I read Housewife to Heretic, and on and on. I read Vogel, Metcalfe and the American Apocrypha. I tried to get all the tools that this or that LDS person thought were indispensable. We hosted church leaders in our home here. I always asked, what should I buy to learn? They were never without suggestions. I was never without my credit card. I was given private VIP tours in SLC, got to sing in the choir loft in the tabernacle. And on and on.

I joined this forum and stormed and normed my way for six years now. I have outlasted a lot of critics of both me and the LDS church. I have mellowed (I hope) and am a member now of this forum (I hope). I have learned a lot here, perhaps too much. Then I learned to love the folks in the ward. Then I learned over a sudden, almost overnight change that I didn't really belong there at all. Not in a formalized membership sense, but in a brother and sister, friend, gifted Christian ministerial sense. So here I am on a Saturday morning back on this forum. . . posting away.

And you start out your response to my comment with, " You still have NO understanding of actual LDS beliefs after all these years." Three years ago if you had said that, (which you did) I would have been offended (which I was). Now when you say it, I just smile and write another epistle. Perhaps actual LDS beliefs are not understandable - not knowable . . . after all these years! After the years, books, articles, sermons, credit card charges, trips, etc etc. I admit, in SMAC's words, I stipulate that I don't understand actual LDS beliefs.

So there . . . I actually agree with you. Perhaps the most hard-core, hard-shell, or hard-headed Saint on this forum or in the pew in our ward doesn't either. Why? Because it morphs, it changes depending on the time, place, culture, leader (world-wide and ward-wide) and consensus of the brethren.  It is my observation that in about thirty year increments, it changes. Are there constants? Sure? There must be.

The LDS church is trying very hard to be different and the same. It is like the Mexican campesinos who in the 1930s wanted everything here in Mexico to change, yet stay the same, both at the same time. The Mexican Mormon convert campesinos in the 1910s went to war for the zapatistas in central-eastern Mexico. They fought the Constitutionalists and gained a new pride, a sense of nationalism, and identity. The Anglo Mormons back up here in the north professed their revolutionary neutrality which alienated them from all sides. Who best represented the Church in Mexico during the long revolutionary years? Profound question. Ok. I am starting to drift away. Sorry. Anyway, you are right, I don't understand, I can't buy enough indispensable tools to accomplish that task. I am putting my credit card away, although I did just buy my wife "The Music of Bees" based on some recommendations on the Social forum. Take care!

Edited August 19, 2023 by Navidad

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

We understand Christ Himself to be the covenant (and the power behind both the old and the new covenants), the binding Person between us and the Father. The Father relates (even sings!) to us, and we to the Father, through Christ. We can attempt to sidestep, and this may be satisfactory for a while, but not as joyous in the long run.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Other than the salvific nature of baptism, I don't see anything to disagree with in your response. The fire part is a metaphor I assume. I have been to probably twenty LDS baptisms and have never observed or been told that anyone else observed fire. Mostly these have been of eight year olds who are well, who are typical eight year olds.

[Bassil]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

If you are interested, we can get into that, but in the other thread you said you wanted to “first to attend the Church activities….later I'll start learning the teachings”, so I don’t know if you want to get into that detail now.

I can read about it. Post a link if you can. 🙂

[Bassil]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

So even if we agree on a singular (yours) interpretation of Mark 16:16

"

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved

"

This verse talks about getting baptized by the spirit as a result of someone's belief. It talks about the second birth. It does not talk about John's practice of baptism, by water.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Bassil said:

I can read about it. Post a link if you can. 🙂

This is the most basic manual for adults that we have, primarily for investigators and new converts.  Generally you would have had missionary lessons prior to reading it.  It is not that long and should be easy reading for you as it is written to be easily understood by even those not that great at reading.  It is best to start at the beginning and read it through or you could get confused if you jump around because they assume you know ideas taught in previous chapters.  It is a very good place to start to get the total picture so if you then go into details you will understand where they fit.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/31129_eng.pdf

Edited August 19, 2023 by Calm

[Bassil]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

This is the most basic manual for adults that we have, primarily for investigators and new converts.

Thank you. 🙏

[Calm]

 

I couldn’t find an online version of Our Search For Happiness by M Russell Ballard.  Does anyone else know of one?

Bassil, this book written for nonmembers is a more enjoyable read, not so much like a textbook.  This is the book I usually give out when I have friends or anyone else ask about the Church.  Unfortunately I can’t find one online and it would probably not be wise to try and mail you a copy.

https://www.amazon.com/Our-Search-Happiness-Russell-Ballard/dp/0875799175/ref=sr_1_1?

Edited August 19, 2023 by Calm

[Navidad]

26 minutes ago, Bassil said:

"

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved

"

This verse talks about getting baptized by the spirit as a result of someone's belief. It talks about the second birth. It does not talk about John's practice of baptism, by water.

Well now, I would most likely agree with you on that, but understand that I am not LDS, I am a Mennonite. So my views are not the same on some of these things as my LDS friends. I seem to see that you lived in the Czech Republic at some time. You might have seen Mennonites or Moravians there. I have close kinship to both groups but enjoy learning about the beliefs of other churches as well. Best wishes.

[Bassil]

12 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Moravians

Moravia is a region south Czech Republic. The capital is Brno. I lived there on the top of a hill for a year and a half. 🙂

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Other than the salvific nature of baptism, I don't see anything to disagree with in your response. The fire part is a metaphor I assume. I have been to probably twenty LDS baptisms and have never observed or been told that anyone else observed fire. Mostly these have been of eight year olds who are well, who are typical eight year olds.

...and hopefully they aren't playing with matches !

I don't know what the Lord's standard for a typical eight-year-old is, but I believe they are considered accountable and can exercise a particle of faith in Christ, which after so hearing and believing in the gospel of salvation with a determination to follow Him, seals them with that holy spirit of promise until they grow up to a fulness of the stature of Christ, having been adopted by Him (Ephesians 1). They will discover and articulate more as they stick with it.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Bassil said:

"

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved

"

This verse talks about getting baptized by the spirit as a result of someone's belief. It talks about the second birth. It does not talk about John's practice of baptism, by water.

Is there a way to explain this for those of us who have not received your particular revelations?

I believe God leads us on a VERY personal journey, none is the same as others.

If I had not experienced atheism for example, I would not now believe in God- my being felt incomplete if I tried to ignore what He was telling me.

Atheism was a crucial part of the path to understanding Christ in the way I do 

I do not understand the difference between first and second baptism as you do at this time

And what is " being saved"?

Edited August 19, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Bassil]

45 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Is there a way to explain this for those of us who have not received your particular revelations?

Oh, I just quoted someone. I don't believe that Jesus wants us to get baptized with water as John the Baptist did. He used this verse to prove his point. I answered no. The word 'baptized' here was meant by the spirit, not by water. We won't be saved by getting baptized by water. We get saved by getting baptized by the Holy Spirit.

The first birth is the one that brought you to this life as a baby. In the second one, you start a process of improvement with the help of the Holy Spirit.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Bassil said:

Moravia is a region south Czech Republic. The capital is Brno. I lived there on the top of a hill for a year and a half. 🙂

Yes. I am a big fan of the Moravian Church. It was founded in southeastern Czech Republic. John Hus was a martyr there. They claim to be the oldest Protestant/restorationist group in history. They have over 600,000 members in Tanzania and other parts of east Africa. I want to go to the Czech Republic some day to see the historic Moravian sites and churches.

Edited August 19, 2023 by Navidad

[JLHPROF]

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

That seems a little harsh when dealing with someone very new to the faith.

My intent was not to be harsh but to state that while everyone is entitled to their own beliefs the source we have for information on Christ's life and ministry is the New Testament.

If you are rejecting the source then your beliefs aren't founded on anything.

5 hours ago, Calm said:

We believe that angels are humans acting as messengers of God, so if what he is saying is there isn’t another type of divine being created by God, I think we could actually agree with that.  If he means God never sends messengers, just acts through the Holy Spirit, that would be a contradiction of our beliefs.

If his intent was to say there are no separate angelic races then I withdraw my statement.  But to say there are no angels is blatantly false in Christian beliefs.

[teddyaware]

15 hours ago, Bassil said:

Oh, I just quoted someone. I don't believe that Jesus wants us to get baptized with water as John the Baptist did. He used this verse to prove his point. I answered no. The word 'baptized' here was meant by the spirit, not by water. We won't be saved by getting baptized by water. We get saved by getting baptized by the Holy Spirit.

The first birth is the one that brought you to this life as a baby. In the second one, you start a process of improvement with the help of the Holy Spirit.

There are far too many examples of water baptisms being performed after Christ’s commandment to his apostles to baptize converts for your negation of water baptism to be correct. What Christ actually taught is that converts have to be baptized by both the water and the Spirit. The one saving ordinance doesn’t cancel the other.

Please explain why the Bible amply demonstrates that the physical ordinance of baptism by water continued after Christ’s resurrection and ascension? 

Edited August 20, 2023 by teddyaware

[Bassil]

18 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

What Christ actually taught is that converts have to be baptized by both the water and the Spirit.

No. Jesus says there should be a second birth for someone to be saved. The water here has nothing to do with getting baptized by water. It indicates that the first birth should be followed by a second birth.

It's just my opinion.

[Navidad]

57 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Please explain why the Bible amply demonstrates that the physical ordinance of baptism by water continued after Christ’s resurrection and ascension? 

My guess would be for the same reason they continue today which is also after Christ's resurrection and ascension. As in Jewish times, baptism reflects a testimony of and commitment to a new faith, path, walk, covenant, commitment to Christ. It is an important ordinance, therefore it continues - perhaps thousands around the world every week.

[Navidad]

43 minutes ago, Bassil said:

No. Jesus says there should be a second birth for someone to be saved. The water here has nothing to do with getting baptized by water. It indicates that the first birth should be followed by a second birth.

It's just my opinion.

Well said. "It's just my opinion" is perhaps the best reply. Whenever we move from belief, opinion, faith, etc. to certainty we get into trouble with things like conflict, violence, etc.

[teddyaware]

20 hours ago, Navidad said:

Well said. "It's just my opinion" is perhaps the best reply. Whenever we move from belief, opinion, faith, etc. to certainty we get into trouble with things like conflict, violence, etc.

Exactly right. If only Jesus and his apostles hadn’t been so darn certain they might have escaped persecution and being put to death.

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

Duplicate 

Edited August 21, 2023 by teddyaware

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Exactly right. If only Jesus and his apostles hadn’t been so darn certain they might have escaped persecution and being put to death.

One slight difference I would  point out. Jesus was and is God. You and I aren't. He has all it takes to be certain. Neither you or I do. We can only use our ability to faith (as a verb), use our judgment, seek wisdom, and do all that in the context of humility.

Also, it may have been the certainty of the Jews of the era and the Romans that led to Christ's and the disciple's persecution and death. I am talking about certainty as an attribute not as the property of any particular group. Political, religious, and ideological certainty have been the cause of great human violence. It matters not the group or cause. Methinks the world would be a much better place if humans could let go of being "so darn certain." How about "provisional certainty" or "confident" as an alternative?

Edited August 21, 2023 by Navidad