The Mysteries of the Spirit World

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

Thanks for all that research!

 

One thing I'm interested in is how the "Saint on the street" discusses these things. Sometimes an official Church teaching can be different from how the average member understands it.

 

For example, I believe an official Catholic Church teaching is that contraception is wrong. But many, maybe most, American Catholics are okay with it. So there may be a difference between what the Vatican says and what the "American Catholic on the street" says 🙂

 

So when the LDS Church - or the average Saint - uses the phrase "...man was in the beginning with God", are they referring to an absolute beginning, or the beginning of something like this universe? Or something else?

I have to guess on this because I haven’t had discussions besides in forums like this one since I was a teen which was 50 years ago.  I think it is most likely they see humanity as being with God in the beginning of this universe and just leave before that as something unknowable.  Perhaps others can share their opinion on this.  I will ask a group of friends I have online (FAIR:  https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org we seek to provide “well-documented answers to criticisms of LDS doctrine, belief and practice”)   if they have any info on this.

7 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

Thanks for all the information ❤️

 

Could a Saint believe that from all eternity there was undifferentiated matter, meaning that there wasn't a piece or section of matter that said Leaf on it, or Calm, or Heavenly Father, but at some point along the way pieces of matter became those beings... could a Saint believe that and still reasonably give the right answers to the temple recommend questions?

One of the reasons I can’t tell you because of so little experience talking about this with other adult members is because it has no bearing on our standing in the Church, so the answer to that is “yes, definitely”.  Besides the issue of our walk (hopefully towards and with God) being more important than our talk (unless we start publicly criticizing the Church in drastic ways which could hinder its mission or cause others to lose faith) mentioned above, there are actually few beliefs that are essential to our faith.  Joseph Smith, our first president/prophet of the restored church said

Quote

“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.”

Here are the temple recommend questions below to which we answer “yes” or “no” unless we want to add more so you can see for yourself what our leaders focus on in determining temple eligibility (usually called worthiness, but I don’t think how most people outside the Church use “worthiness” is really completely applicable to either baptism or temple access and it can cause confusion for those not familiar with the process. Typically the leader doing the interview won’t dig for more info if the member answers “yes” to all.  They probably will if a member answers “no” to see if they can help the member get back on track or if the issue is truly that serious.  While some leaders may probe if they feel something is off or know there is an actual issue (the person is reported to be abusive, for example or the bishop knows they make a very good income, yet pay no tithing), typically unless there is something solid contradicting the person’s answers, they will accept the self declaration of eligibility.  When it comes to the baptism interviews, bishops most likely probe more to ensure someone understands the implications of the covenant, but how much probably varies quite a bit.

These are the current temple recommend questions.  They have always been quite close to this since I have been having interviews (1980).  As you can see there are no questions relating to creation, the garden, the flood, evolution or pretty much any controversial belief or even abortion.  One can believe abortion on demand is great, a bishop would be primarily concerned with how one might support or promote it (abortion is acceptable in limited cases where the health of the mother is at significant risk, the baby won’t survive birth, and in the case of incest or rape)  There are young earth creationists and evolutionists, such as myself who believe evolution is how God organized/created our bodies.  There are those who believe the flood was local, others global, still others cosmic.  There are those who believe the Bible and Book of Mormon stories are symbolic or parables for teaching principles, though most see them as historical.
 

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/october-2019-general-conference-temple-recommend

Quote

The interview questions for temple recommends are below. Verbiage in 11 questions has been modified. Questions 12 and 13 are omitted when youth are interviewed for a limited-use recommend.

Do you have faith in and a testimony of God, the Eternal Father; His Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost?
 

Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Jesus Christ and of His role as your Savior and Redeemer?
 

Do you have a testimony of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ?
 

Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator and as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?

Do you sustain the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators?

Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local leaders of the Church?
 

The Lord has said that all things are to be “done in cleanliness” before Him (Doctrine and Covenants 42:41).

Do you strive for moral cleanliness in your thoughts and behavior?

Do you obey the law of chastity?
 

Do you follow the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ in your private and public behavior with members of your family and others?
 

Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
 

Do you strive to keep the Sabbath day holy, both at home and at church; attend your meetings; prepare for and worthily partake of the sacrament; and live your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?
 

Do you strive to be honest in all that you do?
 

Are you a full-tithe payer?

For new members seeking a limited-use recommend: Are you willing to obey the commandment to pay tithing?
 

Do you understand and obey the Word of Wisdom?
 

Do you have any financial or other obligations to a former spouse or to children?

If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?
 

Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple, including wearing the temple garment as instructed in the endowment?
 

Are there serious sins in your life that need to be resolved with priesthood authorities as part of your repentance?
 

Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord’s house and participate in temple ordinances?

Limited use means doing proxy baptisms and not making any new covenants for oneself.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/comeuntochrist/article/baptisms-for-the-dead

[Leaf474]

On 8/26/2023 at 5:28 PM, manol said:

I am under the impression that “all is one” is not a doctrine of the LDS Church. I am under the impression that, in this context, the LDS Church emphasizes separation rather than union.

That being said, imo there are teachings within the LDS Church which imply that we are part of God (“I am the vine and you are the branches” from the 15^th chapter of John), and there are teachings which imply that God is part of us (“he is in all things, and through all things” from the 88^th section of the Doctrine & Covenants).

My current belief (speaking as a former Latter-day Saint) is largely informed by near-death experience accounts. I see them as uncurated latter-day revelation, and my impression is that they support an “all is one” or “we are part of God” paradigm moreso than a “separate and distinct” paradigm. However I think either can be useful; @mfbukowski has on multiple occasions written about the pragmatic utility of the LDS paradigm.

In case anyone is interested, here is a compilation of near-death experience accounts about oneness; I find them sort of mind-blowing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3DYRbVa9A0&t=1s

And last but not least, near-death experiencer Jeff Olsen (who has an LDS background), from his vision of the Sermon on the Mount:  "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God in everything."  (emphasis mine)

Thanks for all that information ❤️

[Leaf474]

23 hours ago, Calm said:

I have to guess on this because I haven’t had discussions besides in forums like this one since I was a teen which was 50 years ago.  I think it is most likely they see humanity as being with God in the beginning of this universe and just leave before that as something unknowable.  Perhaps others can share their opinion on this.  I will ask a group of friends I have online (FAIR:  https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org we seek to provide “well-documented answers to criticisms of LDS doctrine, belief and practice”)   if they have any info on this.

One of the reasons I can’t tell you because of so little experience talking about this with other adult members is because it has no bearing on our standing in the Church, so the answer to that is “yes, definitely”.  Besides the issue of our walk (hopefully towards and with God) being more important than our talk (unless we start publicly criticizing the Church in drastic ways which could hinder its mission or cause others to lose faith) mentioned above, there are actually few beliefs that are essential to our faith.  Joseph Smith, our first president/prophet of the restored church said

Here are the temple recommend questions below to which we answer “yes” or “no” unless we want to add more so you can see for yourself what our leaders focus on in determining temple eligibility (usually called worthiness, but I don’t think how most people outside the Church use “worthiness” is really completely applicable to either baptism or temple access and it can cause confusion for those not familiar with the process. Typically the leader doing the interview won’t dig for more info if the member answers “yes” to all.  They probably will if a member answers “no” to see if they can help the member get back on track or if the issue is truly that serious.  While some leaders may probe if they feel something is off or know there is an actual issue (the person is reported to be abusive, for example or the bishop knows they make a very good income, yet pay no tithing), typically unless there is something solid contradicting the person’s answers, they will accept the self declaration of eligibility.  When it comes to the baptism interviews, bishops most likely probe more to ensure someone understands the implications of the covenant, but how much probably varies quite a bit.

These are the current temple recommend questions.  They have always been quite close to this since I have been having interviews (1980).  As you can see there are no questions relating to creation, the garden, the flood, evolution or pretty much any controversial belief or even abortion.  One can believe abortion on demand is great, a bishop would be primarily concerned with how one might support or promote it (abortion is acceptable in limited cases where the health of the mother is at significant risk, the baby won’t survive birth, and in the case of incest or rape)  There are young earth creationists and evolutionists, such as myself who believe evolution is how God organized/created our bodies.  There are those who believe the flood was local, others global, still others cosmic.  There are those who believe the Bible and Book of Mormon stories are symbolic or parables for teaching principles, though most see them as historical.
 

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/october-2019-general-conference-temple-recommend

Limited use means doing proxy baptisms and not making any new covenants for oneself.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/comeuntochrist/article/baptisms-for-the-dead

Thanks for the info ❤️

 

Am I understanding right that the worthiness interview is essentially a kind of self test? So if a person believes whatever, as long as they can give the right yes or no to each question, the bishop and stake president are supposed to sign? And the role of the bishop in the interview is basically to help the person reach an honest answer?

 

Just since we're on this topic, suppose the bishop knows that the interviewee is living with his girlfriend. If he says he is following the law of chastity, and the bishop asks probing questions, can he decline to answer?

[rodheadlee]

On 8/26/2023 at 1:15 PM, Navidad said:

I don't know what you mean with your last sentence. I have stared at it trying to parse it for some minutes now without success. I simply can't figure out what you are trying to say with your question. I would appreciate it if you would clarify, but if you prefer not to, that is fine. Best wishes this Saturday afternoon.

Put yourself in Jesus Christ's position. If you spent a humongous amount of time and energy to restart your church in the latter days, to bring forth more knowledge and the blessings that go with it and very few believed it was real. How would you feel?

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

Thanks for the info ❤️

 

Am I understanding right that the worthiness interview is essentially a kind of self test? So if a person believes whatever, as long as they can give the right yes or no to each question, the bishop and stake president are supposed to sign? And the role of the bishop in the interview is basically to help the person reach an honest answer?

That is a good way to describe it. 

58 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

 

Just since we're on this topic, suppose the bishop knows that the interviewee is living with his girlfriend. If he says he is following the law of chastity, and the bishop asks probing questions, can he decline to answer?

All the bishop can do is refuse to sign the recommend if questions aren’t answer.  Excommunication or membership withdrawal only is going to happen in the extreme cases unless the person asks for it themselves.  A member’s status is not made public unless there is a safety issue involved and even then usually it is very low key. I actually wish they were more vocal about cases involving sexual abuse or possible fraud.

On rare occasions someone might be banned from church grounds, usually a safety issue or they are attempting to share antimormon material, but I have never personally seen an actual case of the latter and have only heard of a few possible cases.  Not sure they were even actually banned as in “we will call the police if you trepass” or if they were just asked not to come (there are some antimormons who film encounters at church, thankfully very, very rare).

People sign up for the temple recommend interviews themselves, so it is their choice to come in. The recommends do expire after 2 years, but they don’t chase you down if you don’t have a valid one in my experience. I have health issues that keep me at home mostly (it is why I have a lot of time to do long informative posts  ) and  can’t manage the temple and therefore have forgotten and let it expired by accident quite a few times (it used to last a year, so more opportunities to forget), but no one has ever contacted me or scolded me for doing that. 

Added:  oh my gosh, I just checked and it’s way overdue. Skipped the interview when it was due because of Covid and then spaced on needing it.  This is a record. Thanks for bringing it up so I would check.  

Edited August 28, 2023 by Calm

[Navidad]

13 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Put yourself in Jesus Christ's position. If you spent a humongous amount of time and energy to restart your church in the latter days, to bring forth more knowledge and the blessings that go with it and very few believed it was real. How would you feel?

I don't know how to answer that since I disagree with the basic premise behind your question. I don't believe that Christ spent a humongous amount of time and energy to restart his church in the latter days, to bring forth more knowledge and the blessings that go with it. Do I believe that there was a need to reform or restore the church? Yes.

I believe that was a movement that existed throughout the centuries between the death of the apostles and the time we live in today. I believe the Lollards, Waldensians, the Moravians, the Anabaptists, the Protestants, and yes to some degree, Catholics were a part of it as time, as in the Council of Trent, moved on. I believe the early Mormons borrowed heavily from each of those traditions. Between all of that and today, I believe not a "very few" believed it was real, but a whole lot of folks, Catholic and otherwise believed it was real. I rather believe that Christ grieves when the heirs of that tradition, deny its validity and insist they are the only restoration of His church. I am an example of one who is an heir of that tradition prior to the LDS church.

The question that is more relevant to me is, how would you feel if you were Christ and had been restoring your church for at least five hundred years and more likely 1000 years or so before the 19th century, and had thousands upon thousands of your followers die a martyr's death, only to have one new group come along and insist that they were the only group to honor, sustain, and restore your church? How would you feel? I don't think you would be very pleased with that new church, regardless of what it claimed!

I prefer to put myself into Jesus Christ's position looking at the restoration of His church over the centuries, very possibly for over 1000 years. I think He appreciates and honors all who participated in that including the LDS church that came in 1830. How would you feel?

Edited August 28, 2023 by Navidad

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

Thanks for the info ❤️

 

Am I understanding right that the worthiness interview is essentially a kind of self test? So if a person believes whatever, as long as they can give the right yes or no to each question, the bishop and stake president are supposed to sign? And the role of the bishop in the interview is basically to help the person reach an honest answer?

 

Just since we're on this topic, suppose the bishop knows that the interviewee is living with his girlfriend. If he says he is following the law of chastity, and the bishop asks probing questions, can he decline to answer?

As a former bishop ( we rotate every 5 or so years), I have been trained that lying to the bishop is like trying to lie to God.

Not very bright. Assuming you believe that the temple is spiritually beneficial, lying would destroy its efficacy completely.  Assuming you believe it is fake, and it is NOT beneficial and your motivation is curiosity,  the whole process is meaningless.

Plus if you lie for example about tithing, the bishop can easily figure ot out.  Suppose you have told him you are a CPA and paid $50 in tithing, and you drive a new Mercedes?

He is smarter than that.

There are reasons for the interview, and your honesty before God SHOULD BE regarded as YOUR opportunity to think things out and be honest.

What's the point of it if you lie?

Why go through all the hassle of getting baptized, talking to the bishop, getting baptized - a few other interviews etc?

The only one who really cares is God.

 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

So if a person believes whatever, as long as they can give the right yes or no to each question, the bishop and stake president are supposed to sign?

Absolutely not.

They will be watching every twitch and listening for incongruity with other interviews and random info floating around in the ward.

On the other hand they do not want to affect your genuine progression 

[rodheadlee]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I don't know how to answer that since I disagree with the basic premise behind your question. I don't believe that Christ spent a humongous amount of time and energy to restart his church in the latter days, to bring forth more knowledge and the blessings that go with it. Do I believe that there was a need to reform or restore the church? Yes.

I believe that was a movement that existed throughout the centuries between the death of the apostles and the time we live in today. I believe the Lollards, Waldensians, the Moravians, the Anabaptists, the Protestants, and yes to some degree, Catholics were a part of it as time, as in the Council of Trent, moved on. I believe the early Mormons borrowed heavily from each of those traditions. Between all of that and today, I believe not a "very few" believed it was real, but a whole lot of folks, Catholic and otherwise believed it was real. I rather believe that Christ grieves when the heirs of that tradition, deny its validity and insist they are the only restoration of His church. I am an example of one who is an heir of that tradition prior to the LDS church.

The question that is more relevant to me is, how would you feel if you were Christ and had been restoring your church for at least five hundred years and more likely 1000 years or so before the 19th century, and had thousands upon thousands of your followers die a martyr's death, only to have one new group come along and insist that they were the only group to honor, sustain, and restore your church? How would you feel? I don't think you would be very pleased with that new church, regardless of what it claimed!

I prefer to put myself into Jesus Christ's position looking at the restoration of His church over the centuries, very possibly for over 1000 years. I think He appreciates and honors all who participated in that included the LDS church that came in 1830. How would you feel?

I know what your beliefs are, I have read literally pages of them. I was trying to get you to look at it from a different point of view. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

I know what your beliefs are, I have read literally pages of them. I was trying to get you to look at it from a different point of view. 

Not going to happen.

[Sara H]

On 8/26/2023 at 9:48 AM, Leaf474 said:

One thing I'm interested in is how the "Saint on the street" discusses these things. Sometimes an official Church teaching can be different from how the average member understands it

As a member of the LDS church, I was instructed that we are considered eternal creatures because we have always existed, either as humans, spirits, or intelligences, in one form or another. Because we have never not existed, our God, along with all the previous gods that have attained godhood before us, should not be seen as an entity that was formed before we did. Their passage through eternity took place much more quickly than ours did, which is why God now possesses Godhood. 

 

There are a lot of LDS People who I talk to believe that we were made by God and that this is how we came to be, but if we believe that we have always existed, then this cannot be the case. Even if there is no conclusion to its existence, an everlasting creature can never have a starting point. It has always been my understanding that our faith teaches that there are possibly billions of gods and billions of earths, and that the gods are responsible for constructing earths in order to provide a home for spirit offspring. That is the world of eternity, the existence that will never end that God has planned for his billions and billions of spirit offspring. In addition, not everyone will be able to do this because the bulk of God's spirit offspring will be residing in a lower kingdom that does not permit progression. The Gods who reside in the Celestial Kingdom will take these children under their care as their servants. 

 

[Sara H]

11 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

Just since we're on this topic, suppose the bishop knows that the interviewee is living with his girlfriend. If he says he is following the law of chastity, and the bishop asks probing questions, can he decline to answer?

Regarding the manner in which they carry out their responsibilities, each Bishop has their own unique style. Some Bishops are quite stringent in their responsibilities and follow the law to the letter, while others are more lenient in their duties and operate more like an unpaid counselor. Some Bishops are unable to tolerate the feeling that they are being lied to, while other Bishops are aware of the fact that they are being lied to on a consistent basis. For instance, the vast majority of bishops are aware that the vast majority of young men engage in "selflove," and if a young man who is being interviewed claims that he adheres to the law of chastity, then that young man is probably lying to the bishop. But what course of action will the Bishop take? He has no choice but to have faith in the young man. 

The plain and straightforward truth is that every single person who steps foot inside the temple is a sinner. Every single Bishop, General Authority, and Apostle is a sinning member of the Church. Having a conversation with a Bishop will not make you "sinless." 

 

 

[Sara H]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

They will be watching every twitch and listening for incongruity with other interviews and random info floating around in the ward.

Thankfully, not all bishops behave in this manner all of the time. There are a lot of bishops who recognize the complexity of life and don't want to engage in micromanagement by "watching for every twitch" and "listening for incongruity" in the ward. Bishops who behave in this manner, in my view, are typically neglected by the members of the ward, and the majority of members can't wait till the bishop is freed from his responsibilities. Because of how authoritarian certain Bishops can be, I know a significant number of people who have stopped attending church as a result. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Sara H said:

In addition, not everyone will be able to do this because the bulk of God's spirit offspring will be residing in a lower kingdom that does not permit progression

This is debatable.  Leaders have taught profession between kingdoms as well as not. 

Quote

 The Gods who reside in the Celestial Kingdom will take these children under their care as their servants. 

Call for reference that lower kingdoms are servants. 

[Sara H]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

This is debatable.  Leaders have taught profession between kingdoms as well as not. 

Call for reference that lower kingdoms are servants. 

 

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

This is debatable.  Leaders have taught profession between kingdoms as well as not. 

Call for reference that lower kingdoms are servants. 

Basic LDS Doctrine 

[Navidad]

10 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

I know what your beliefs are, I have read literally pages of them. I was trying to get you to look at it from a different point of view. 

My friend, you asked me a question. You did not simply express a different point of view. I sat here for quite a while trying to figure out how to answer your question. I acknowledged I didn't know how to answer it. I then answered it in a way in which I tried to accomplish two things: 1. Receive, acknowledge, and/or accept your belief without agreeing with it, since I don't.  2. I both acknowledged the need for restoration, and included the LDS church in the restoration of Christ's church, along with pre-Protestants, non-Protestants, Protestants, and many Catholics as well.

Is that not a "different point of view" in your experience? I honor your tradition yet reject your doctrine of "onliness." That is what I tried very hard to put into my answer to you. That is indeed from my experiences, a "different point of view." Can you and my other friends here not look at it as that as well?

Edited August 28, 2023 by Navidad

[Navidad]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Not going to happen.

Please see the response I just wrote. Please accept it as a response to your comment as well. I don't know how to reply to two separate comments at once.

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Sara H said:

As a member of the LDS church, I was instructed that we are considered eternal creatures because we have always existed, either as humans, spirits, or intelligences, in one form or another. Because we have never not existed, our God, along with all the previous gods that have attained godhood before us, should not be seen as an entity that was formed before we did. Their passage through eternity took place much more quickly than ours did, which is why God now possesses Godhood. 

 

There are a lot of LDS People who I talk to believe that we were made by God and that this is how we came to be, but if we believe that we have always existed, then this cannot be the case. Even if there is no conclusion to its existence, an everlasting creature can never have a starting point. It has always been my understanding that our faith teaches that there are possibly billions of gods and billions of earths, and that the gods are responsible for constructing earths in order to provide a home for spirit offspring. That is the world of eternity, the existence that will never end that God has planned for his billions and billions of spirit offspring. In addition, not everyone will be able to do this because the bulk of God's spirit offspring will be residing in a lower kingdom that does not permit progression. The Gods who reside in the Celestial Kingdom will take these children under their care as their servants. 

 

You have a very clear and direct way of expressing things. I enjoy reading your posts and find them very informative.

[Sara H]

21 minutes ago, Navidad said:

You have a very clear and direct way of expressing things. I enjoy reading your posts and find them very informative.

Thanks! 

I just wanted to let you know that I have had the impression that you have taken offense to some of my statements in the past when I have made comparisons between LDS religion and Christianity. In point of fact, I have no intention of offending any Christians who might be reading this board; rather the reverse, in fact. My viewpoint is that our beliefs and Christian beliefs are in no way, shape, or form compatible with one another, and that's perfectly fine. I have a lot of respect for Christianity, and the most of my friends are Christians rather than Latter-day Saints. When one of my Christian friends informs me that the beliefs held by Latter-day Saints are not Christian, I agree with them. In my perspective, the objective of reestablishing the "true and everlasting gospel" was to disprove Christianity. This was the main reason for doing so. To say to a Christian that they just have a portion of the truth while we have all of the truth is, in my opinion, both arrogant and condescending coming from a member of the LDS faith. Even though I have done it quite frequently, that does not mean that it is appropriate. 

 

When we are led to believe that we are the only ones who possess the "complete truth," one of the most significant issues that arises as a result of the manner in which our religion is disseminated is that something within our minds gives us the impression that we are superior to everyone else. And the teaching of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the only doctrine that educates its adherents to feel this way. Many faiths teach its members to experience a sense of superiority because they have chosen to follow the laws of the religion in such an obedient fashion that they nearly become blind to criticism. 

 

Again, just so you know, in my opinion, we members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ought to be defending our beliefs in multiple gods and a heavenly mother, rather than attempting to appear more Christian. 

 

[Navidad]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

They will be watching every twitch and listening for incongruity with other interviews and random info floating around in the ward.

Wow! That is really an interesting comment about the revelation, insight, and wisdom of the LDS bishop! Sounds more like the detective son of Commissioner Reagan on Blue Bloods! I can't think of his name, but my wife watches it all the time while she is ironing.

Edited August 28, 2023 by Navidad

[Navidad]

6 hours ago, Sara H said:

Thanks! 

I just wanted to let you know that I have had the impression that you have taken offense to some of my statements in the past when I have made comparisons between LDS religion and Christianity. In point of fact, I have no intention of offending any Christians who might be reading this board; rather the reverse, in fact. My viewpoint is that our beliefs and Christian beliefs are in no way, shape, or form compatible with one another, and that's perfectly fine. I have a lot of respect for Christianity, and the most of my friends are Christians rather than Latter-day Saints. When one of my Christian friends informs me that the beliefs held by Latter-day Saints are not Christian, I agree with them. In my perspective, the objective of reestablishing the "true and everlasting gospel" was to disprove Christianity. This was the main reason for doing so. To say to a Christian that they just have a portion of the truth while we have all of the truth is, in my opinion, both arrogant and condescending coming from a member of the LDS faith. Even though I have done it quite frequently, that does not mean that it is appropriate. 

 

When we are led to believe that we are the only ones who possess the "complete truth," one of the most significant issues that arises as a result of the manner in which our religion is disseminated is that something within our minds gives us the impression that we are superior to everyone else. And the teaching of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the only doctrine that educates its adherents to feel this way. Many faiths teach its members to experience a sense of superiority because they have chosen to follow the laws of the religion in such an obedient fashion that they nearly become blind to criticism. 

 

Again, just so you know, in my opinion, we members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ought to be defending our beliefs in multiple gods and a heavenly mother, rather than attempting to appear more Christian. 

 

Thanks for this reply. In return, several things . . . . I only take offense at posts that:

1. generalize or normalize an increasingly lessening (does that make sense?) percentage of Evangelicals or non-LDS Christians in general as representing a Christian community, that is consistently, rapidly, and inevitably changing. I have friends in the Mormon Fundamentalist communities that exist to the west and south of me. While acknowledging them as Mormons, I would not characterize them, their beliefs, doctrines, lifestyles, or political actions as normative of Mormon (including the broad LDS community) beliefs. Of course their beliefs are, to them, worth fighting for, and they often do.

2. I also admit to getting irritated (not offended) when folks use downvotes as disagreement devices.

3. I get frustrated when someone asks me a question on the forum and then I struggle to answer it in an accurate, yet non-dismissive way and then they respond negatively, at times with sarcasm, if they don't agree with it. Now, I acknowledge that each of these three are going to happen on this forum. I acknowledge that it is a Mormon forum. I am not Mormon, therefore I am an outsider. Sometimes I do wonder if LDS sarcasm is an LDS epigenetic soul wound? But then I realize that it is a human trait that is a human soul wound, including being owned by yours truly. I also acknowledge that I fail at what I try to write. I am not a magician with a keyboard. So at times, I deserve whatever I get!

I also acknowledge that my wife and I have been hurt, confused, and to some degree are angered by the official representatives of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in our ward (yes . . . . our ward). Many of the folks here might think, or even put into words to me, you don't deserve to be hurt - its our rules, we have a right to enforce them as we will, especially the bishops who operate under revelation. But then you insist God is not a God of confusion! ?????  Sometimes I think of this forum as a safe place to express that hurt, confusion, and anger. Of course that is silly of me; this is a Mormon forum. I also know our new bishop comes from LDS royalty! I come from a small Mennonite town in Pennsylvania. If I mentioned our bishop's last name, everyone on this forum who is LDS, or not, would have an opinion, without even knowing him. At any rate, that hurt, confusion, and anger have collectively caused me to recently "act out" on the forum more than normal 🙃. I regret that and try and guard against it, but often fail.

Lastly, I believe there are corners in every church, denomination, and religious group on earth that are dark places. As a matter of fact, I lecture, both here and in the states on religion and conflict, or religion as conflict. As an outsider, on this forum I am allowed to acknowledge those places in my own group, but certainly not in the dominant faith here. Similar to a number of other faiths, the LDS Church has a history, sometimes valid - sometimes not-of persecution, even martyrdom that makes it protective, even of its dark corners. It reminds me of the same in the Anabaptist and Moravian traditions. They get along, but debate with each other over who is the oldest, most persecuted group that has suffered the most in the history of Christianity. Of course my Catholic and Orthodox friends would debate that with a whole lot of validity. That is why it is such an interesting field of study.  Sorry I have gone on too long, so will relieve your need to read any more. Best wishes, Navidad

Edited August 28, 2023 by Navidad

[Leaf474]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

That is a good way to describe it. 

All the bishop can do is refuse to sign the recommend if questions aren’t answer.

Do you mean the bishop can refuse to sign if the actual worthiness interview questions are not answered properly, or he can refuse to sign if his own probing questions are not answered?

17 hours ago, Calm said:

Excommunication or membership withdrawal only is going to happen in the extreme cases unless the person asks for it themselves.  A member’s status is not made public unless there is a safety issue involved and even then usually it is very low key. I actually wish they were more vocal about cases involving sexual abuse or possible fraud.

On rare occasions someone might be banned from church grounds, usually a safety issue or they are attempting to share antimormon material, but I have never personally seen an actual case of the latter and have only heard of a few possible cases.  Not sure they were even actually banned as in “we will call the police if you trepass” or if they were just asked not to come (there are some antimormons who film encounters at church, thankfully very, very rare).

People sign up for the temple recommend interviews themselves, so it is their choice to come in. The recommends do expire after 2 years, but they don’t chase you down if you don’t have a valid one in my experience. I have health issues that keep me at home mostly (it is why I have a lot of time to do long informative posts  ) and  can’t manage the temple and therefore have forgotten and let it expired by accident quite a few times (it used to last a year, so more opportunities to forget), but no one has ever contacted me or scolded me for doing that.

The reason I was asking about the temple recommend is that I think the LDS church, like pretty much every other church, welcomes nearly everyone to come sit in the pew (quietly 😀).

 

Since I was hearing a wide variety of ideas about things like our eternal nature, I figured something like the worthiness interview would be where "the rubber meets the road" regarding what beliefs are tolerated.

 

17 hours ago, Calm said:

Added:  oh my gosh, I just checked and it’s way overdue. Skipped the interview when it was due because of Covid and then spaced on needing it.  This is a record. Thanks for bringing it up so I would check.  

Glad I could help 😃

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

Do you mean the bishop can refuse to sign if the actual worthiness interview questions are not answered properly, or he can refuse to sign if his own probing questions are not answered?

It would be unusual for a bishop to sign if the questions weren’t answered as expected.  
 

If his clarification questions aren’t answered, it is up to him to decide.  Some likely will sign, others won’t.  I think it depends for most on how much and what he knows from other sources.  Perhaps a spouse has told the bishop they are starting to be abusive and the bishop asks about it while the member responses “there are only two people in a marriage, Bishop, not three” implying it’s none of his business…I think he would refuse to sign.  If otoh, the spouse complained about more arguing, but nothing suggested abuse, I think there is a good chance he would still sign.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

Wow! That is really an interesting comment about the revelation, insight, and wisdom of the LDS bishop! Sounds more like the detective son of Commissioner Reagan on Blue Bloods! I can't think of his name, but my wife watches it all the time while she is ironing.

Good informations leads to good inspiration.

[Leaf474]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

As a former bishop ( we rotate every 5 or so years), I have been trained that lying to the bishop is like trying to lie to God.

Not very bright. Assuming you believe that the temple is spiritually beneficial, lying would destroy its efficacy completely.  Assuming you believe it is fake, and it is NOT beneficial and your motivation is curiosity,  the whole process is meaningless.

Plus if you lie for example about tithing, the bishop can easily figure ot out.  Suppose you have told him you are a CPA and paid $50 in tithing, and you drive a new Mercedes?

He is smarter than that.

There are reasons for the interview, and your honesty before God SHOULD BE regarded as YOUR opportunity to think things out and be honest.

What's the point of it if you lie?

Why go through all the hassle of getting baptized, talking to the bishop, getting baptized - a few other interviews etc?

The only one who really cares is God.

 

Can a person decline to answer a probing question?