The Mysteries of the Spirit World

[Leaf474]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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 

Well... Getting around to something we talked about earlier, can the person just say "It's my truth"?

[Leaf474]

9 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.

Thanks for the input 🙂

9 hours ago, Sara H said:

 

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.

 

9 hours ago, Sara H said:

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.

A Saint that I talked to on YouTube said the logical conclusion is that there is an infinite amount of matter, spirits, Gods, etc. Does that fit with your understanding as well?

9 hours ago, Sara H said:

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

 

That reminded me of the Greek pantheon (that's not intended as a criticism). But it also reminded me of something else: is there anything that prevents Gods from going bad?

[Leaf474]

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. 

 

I'm fascinated to hear you say that. I was talking to a well-educated Saint who seemed to want to present the Restoration as not that dissimilar from Evangelical Christianity. Just some tweaks, and putting back some of the "plain and precious things."

 

In fact, she said that she would not converse with an Evangelical who did not acknowledge that she was a Christian.

 

I made several attempts to explain that in the Evangelical mind, she wasn't. I also pointed out that from the LDS point of view, Evangelicals are not born again in the full sense of the phrase.

 

But it does seem that many Saints really want to be seen as in the same tradition as Christianity through the centuries. Unless I'm misunderstanding ❤️

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Good informations leads to good inspiration.

Yes it does. You are absolutely correct. That is why it was hard for us that our bishop made the decisions he did about us without once in six years, as a non-bishop ever having talked to us, not at a social event or such. In all that time it was never more than a Good morning from him. I am not sure, but he might be the only person in the ward who never came to our home for a gathering, empty nester get-together, or just a visit to sit by the river, while in our little village. His wife did. I never had a conversation with him of any kind about anything. To be fair, he did let us borrow his big irrigation fan to hook onto our tractor to zinc our trees.

He apparently made up his mind and then left us hanging with uncomfortable hellos for at least six months, before he came to our home with both counselors to inform us of the verdict. He has never spoken to us since. Both counselors with whom we were close, have been here. The bishop, in a tiny ward, never before or after. He may have been led by good inspiration, but he had no information, at least not from us. Anyway, I know I have to stop talking about it. I know. I know. Our stake president is a good friend. He just in so many words let me know he is not going to overrule the bishop. We just have to wait!

Edited August 28, 2023 by Navidad

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Leaf474 said:

Can a person decline to answer a probing question?

No.

You can, but that would indicate a "no" answer 

You have already seen the questions, there is no probing usually.

It's yes or no.

If you answer "no" then you open up the door to discussion.

It is expected that all answers will be yes, or you would not be requesting the interview. The purpose of the interview is to get a recommend, not chat about what you still do not believe 

Edited August 28, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

12 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

I made several attempts to explain that in the Evangelical mind, she wasn't. I also pointed out that from the LDS point of view, Evangelicals are not born again in the full sense of the phrase.

Well my friend, I am an card-carrying Evangelical and I believe that my LDS friends can be Christians in the same way that my Baptist, Mennonite, Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox, and non-denominational friends can be Christians. I don't believe every LDS church member is a Christian any more than I believe every Presbyterian or Pentecostal or every member of any of the faiths I mentioned above is a Christian.

I believe people experience salvation as an individual not as a church-member. If you are an Evangelical, then let me ask you . . . have you ever witnessed to someone and asked them to say the sinner's prayer, and then went back to your church, or spouse, or youth group, and said "Wow, I witnessed to someone today and they accepted Christ, were born again, or asked the Lord into their hearts." If so, at that point, what did they actually believe that made you make that statement? My guess is at that point they hadn't been baptized. No six week membership class yet. What did they know about eschatology, etc." Are you old enough to ever have been to a Billy Graham crusade, or had someone come forward in a church service to give their heart to Christ? What did they believe at that point? What didn't they believe? Also my LDS friends don't use the phrase "born again" (although some don't object to it), so they don't deal in the "full sense" of that phrase. They separate salvation and exaltation. We Evangelicals split out salvation and sanctification. I am not equating exactly that distintion, but am pointing out a difference in the use of terms.

I am happy to talk back and forth with you any time about the "Evangelical mind." Our friends here on the forum would probably enjoy reading those conversations! Take care and best wishes.

[mfbukowski]

22 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Yes it does. You are absolutely correct. That is why it was hard for us that our bishop made the decisions he did about us without once in six years ever having talked to us. In all that time it was never more than a Good morning from him. I am not sure, but he might be the only person in the ward who never came to our home for a gathering, empty nester get-together, or just a visit. His wife did. I never had a conversation with him of any kind about anything.

He apparently made up his mind and then left us hanging with uncomfortable hellos for at least six months, before he came to our home with both counselors to inform us of the verdict. He has never spoken to us since. Both counselors with whom we were close, have been here. The bishop, in a tiny ward, never before or after. He may have been led by good inspiration, but he had no information, at least not from us. Anyway, I know I have to stop talking about it. I know. I know. Our stake president is a good friend. He just in so many words let me know he is not going to overrule the bishop. We just have to wait!

Adult baptism interviews are done by missionaries, not bishops.

The bishop may simply getting from the missionaries that you are "not ready", which after 6 years is all he needs to know.

Baptism or not?

... Next...

 

[Navidad]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Adult baptism interviews are done by missionaries, not bishops.

The bishop may simply getting from the missionaries that you are "not ready", which after 6 years is all he needs to know.

Baptism or not?

... Next...

 

Ready for what? I think you are confused about something. I am talking about fellowshipping, worshiping, and ministering in the ward. We have never discussed being baptized once with anyone in our ward, stake, area, etc. Of course, one guy while at an empty nester get-together at our house did say they had ten men there who collectively were going to throw me into the river to be baptized! All thirty people had a good laugh at that! Missionaries? We have wonderful talks with missionaries and often have carried them back and forth to our village or ministered to their needs while they were here. We never had a teaching lesson from or with a missionary. We were always too collectively busy talking about Mennonites, the people in our area, answering their questions about what non-LDS Christians really believe, etc. That reminds me, I haven't seen a missionary in our village for a long time. They were not allowed to come here for a while (and that had nothing to do with us). Take care my friend.

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Ready for what? I think you are confused about something. I am talking about fellowshipping, worshiping, and ministering in the ward. We have never discussed being baptized once with anyone in our ward, stake, area, etc. Of course, one guy while at an empty nester get-together at our house did say they had ten men there who collectively were going to throw me into the river to be baptized! All thirty people had a good laugh at that! Missionaries? We have wonderful talks with missionaries and often have carried them back and forth to our village or ministered to their needs while they were here. We never had a teaching lesson from or with a missionary. We were always too collectively busy talking about Mennonites, the people in our area, answering their questions about what non-LDS Christians really believe, etc. That reminds me, I haven't seen a missionary in our village for a long time. They were not allowed to come here for a while (and that had nothing to do with us). Take care my friend.

Well fine for you.

Usual procedure is the missionaries to visit you the first time and find out if you are receptive.

Finally at some point they give you a "baptism challenge", and if you say no to baptism, they leave you alone.

We just did that, visiting a prospective "investigator", and that is what happened 

Done. No fellowship, etc= it has no purpose. You will never want to be baptized- call us, we won't keep pestering you to tell us about YOUR faith.  Call us, we won't call you

 

Missionaries, former missionaries,  on the board please comment 

Edited August 28, 2023 by mfbukowski

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

That reminded me of the Greek pantheon (that's not intended as a criticism). But it also reminded me of something else: is there anything that prevents Gods from going bad?

I would say the only thing that prevents God from going bad is His own internal moral compass.  By the time He achieved Godhood, He had perfected His moral compass and so He won't go bad.  But technically, He could decide to just go off the deep end and obliterate everything.

1 hour ago, Leaf474 said:

But it does seem that many Saints really want to be seen as in the same tradition as Christianity through the centuries. Unless I'm misunderstanding ❤️

I don't think it is that we want to be seen "in the same tradition as Christianity through the centuries" (though maybe the person you are talking to does).  For me, I want to be acknowledged that I do believe in Christ.  I recently received a door pamphlet from another Christian sect that explained why Mormons weren't Christians.  All the explanations were very basic: we believe Christ and satan are brothers, we believe in a restoration, we believe in a Heavenly Mother, we believe that God and Christ are not the same thing, etc.  I'm not particularly bothered by them doing that and even let my kids read the pamphlet (they found it odd how their beliefs were being twisted).  I get that we see things differently.  But we still believe in Christ and acknowledge His power in our lives.  That's why I want to be called Christian.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well fine for you.

Usual procedure is the missionaries to visit you the first time and find out if you are receptive.

Finally at some point they give you a "baptism challenge", and if you say no to baptism, they leave you alone.

We just did that, visiting a prospective "investigator", and that is what happened 

Done. No fellowship, etc= it has no purpose. You will never want to be baptized- call us, we won't keep pestering you to tell us about YOUR faith.  Call us, we won't call you

 

Missionaries, former missionaries,  on the board please comment 

You clearly have closed your eyes to our situation for all these years. You are talking about a protocol that has never fit us. Missionaries have never ever visited us for the first time to find out if we are receptive. They have visited us to get a ride home, use the restroom, get some water, or make a call because their phone is dead. They have therefore never given us a baptismal challenge. I have never said no. It just has never happened. We were never and are not prospective investigators. Everyone in our ward knows that and I am sure the missionaries have been advised of that. We minister to them in times of needs. No purpose in that?

Temple presidents, mission presidents, the area presidency members, the bishopric, the stake presidency have all been our friends and know our situation. Stake PR directors have asked for our assistance at times. The retired Church PR managing director knows me and my situation. I consider him a friend. They each know we are not candidates for anything else than to be faithful-non-members. No one, including a GA emeritus has ever remonstrated us for that. I have met and interacted with other managing directors and general authorities.

Done? Yes it is probably now done. What has no purpose? Serving in ways the Holy Spirit has gifted us? No purpose? You will have to ask the members of our ward and stranded missionaries if our presence there and here has no purpose. That is not for you or me to decide. I will never want to be baptized. That is true. Our location and situation is unique. So long as my LDS baptism is a statement that I believe my previous baptism was of no spiritual benefit, and that the scores of folks I have baptized have been of no spiritual benefit, then I will never be baptized. Mennonites and Mormons are a general cultural curiosity here. I have given Firesides with bishops present on the faith and history of Mennonites, on the apostles in the colonies, on Mormons in the revolution. I have spoken to a lot of family reunions here on their heritage. Either my wife or I talk with someone from the ward every day.

You are stereotyping what you know over the last six years has been a non-stereotypical situation, or you haven't been paying attention. Its not fine for me. It is where God has led us to worship, fellowship, and minister for five full years with the full approval of those up to the area authority, mission authorities, temple authorities (some of my best friends in our stake and ward), the stake patriarch, and I can't think of who else. BYU religion professors, church history professors, chairs of Mormon studies, directors of LDS archives, and on and on. Anyone who wants to on this board is free to comment, as they wish. Take care.

Edited August 29, 2023 by Navidad

[Calm]

19 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

That reminded me of the Greek pantheon (that's not intended as a criticism). But it also reminded me of something else: is there anything that prevents Gods from going bad?

My opinion.  By the time anyone gets resurrected, they have been purified of all sinfulness.  Every kingdom is a kingdom of God’s glory.  Without sinful motivations in one’s nature, there is no reason to go bad, so it seems that even if logically one can say a god could choose evil as they have the opportunity and the capability, but lack the inclination so there is no reason why they would.

PS:  In regards to the lower kingdoms being servants and reminding you of the greek pantheon, we all are servants of the Most High when we answer his call.  One use of servants therefore is likely not saying they are a lower caste, but rather that they are still part of God’s kingdom given the following phrase could be understood to exclude them from God’s kingdom without this added context….another way of saying this below could be they are God’s people even if they cannot be in the Celestial Kingdom (this last is why some believe there is no progression between kingdoms).

Quote

And they shall be servants of the Most High; but whereGod and Christ dwell they cannot come, worlds without end.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/76?lang=eng&id=112#p112

“Servants of the Most High” refers to missionaries and church leaders anciently and modern.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/dan/3?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/acts/16?lang=eng&id=17#p17

https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/chd/transcript?lang=eng&name=transcript-for-greenwood-william-reminiscence-in-william-greenwood-family-197-10

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-thomas-s-monson/chapter-15-missionary-service-a-sacred-charge?lang=eng

Sara H’s verses, otoh, (posted early) are from a different section dealing with the covenant of marriage and not the various kingdoms and describe those who are not married by the everlasting covenant vs those who are and who receive exaltation and therefore could include angels in the Celestial Kingdom.  Some have speculated the three divisions of the Celestial Kingdom in section 131 means the most advanced level is exaltation, the second is for those who have their endowment, but have not been married, and the third is for those who have been baptized….but this is imo pure speculation.  I don’t believe we can even be sure the “celestial glory” of Sec 131 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/131?lang=eng#p7 is referring to the most advanced kingdom of glory, it could be referring to all of heaven, iow the already described three kingdoms of glory.  Inconsistent terminology is very common in the early modern church (using Jehovah to refer to the Father or the Son; the Urim and Thummin being used to refer to the biblical instrument, the Interpreters, and the seer stone; celestial meaning heavenly or divine or a specific kingdom of God’s Glory).

Quote

15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

My bold

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng#p8

Edited August 29, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

 

18 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

But it does seem that many Saints really want to be seen as in the same tradition as Christianity through the centuries. Unless I'm misunderstanding ❤️

The vast majority of Saints I have talked to just want to be acknowledged as believing in and following Christ to the best of their understanding when they insist they are Christian. They actually see themselves as belonging to a different tradition/branch of Christianity as the Gospel was restored and not reformed.  This kind of ignores the beliefs and traditions that got brought in unintentionally, so I don’t think we are completely independent of historical Christianity, but our authority is not seen as part of any other Christian faith tradition as it came from God by angelic messengers.  Off line in 60 years I have only had one Saint insist they were not Christian.  He was from the South and had previously had bad experiences with antimormons, some of who were ministers of Christian faiths.  It was an emotional rejection rather than a rational one because he was offended the rest of us Saints in the class still identified and fought for the right to be seen as Christians, iow believers in and seekers of Christ.  I have had much more experience with Saints who were offended at being called Mormon (this was prior to President Nelson’s call to set the nickname aside for certain things) because they were tired of the confusion, claims we worshiped Mormon (do Lutherans worship Luther?), etc.

I think the misunderstanding we want to be part of the tradition of Christianity comes from we (members in general) don’t view Christianity as a “tradition” generally speaking.  Christianity would be defined in this context as a collection of all who believe in Christ.  It is a very simple, basic construct.

As far as the full “born again” experience, you would likely have to define that for Saints to get consistent answers as many Saints tend to define it differently depending on the context.  Many only know some other Christians call themselves “born again” and have no problem accepting they are fully such, it would be seen as the same as calling ourselves “Latter-day Saints”.  

If by the “LDS point of view” you mean repentance and baptism, I agree we wouldn’t agree that those who haven’t been baptized by the proper god given priesthood authority are “born again” in our terminology given baptism and confirmation are part of being born again in our teachings.

But then most Saints aren’t fully born again yet because we haven’t been fully changed to a state of righteousness.

Quote

23 And it came to pass after they had fasted and prayed for the space of two days and two nights, the limbs of Alma received their strength, and he stood up and began to speak unto them, bidding them to be of good comfort:

24 For, said he, I have repented of my sins, and have been redeemed of the Lord; behold I am born of the Spirit.

25 And the Lord said unto me: Marvel not that all mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, must be born again; yea, born of God, changed from their carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness, being redeemed of God, becoming his sons and daughters;

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/27?lang=eng

Edited August 29, 2023 by Calm

[Sara H]

14 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

A Saint that I talked to on YouTube said the logical conclusion is that there is an infinite amount of matter, spirits, Gods, etc. Does that fit with your understanding as well

Yes

14 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

That reminded me of the Greek pantheon (that's not intended as a criticism). But it also reminded me of something else: is there anything that prevents Gods from going bad

No. 

[Sara H]

13 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

 

But it does seem that many Saints really want to be seen as in the same tradition as Christianity through the centuries. Unless I'm misunderstanding

This is how I understand the church and its history. When Joseph was commanded to reestablish the everlasting gospel on the face of the earth, there was not a single Christian church that had not become so ungodly with evil that it could serve as a foundation for reestablishing the doctrines and principles of the authentic gospel, which had been misplaced for a thousand years or more. Just give that some thought for a second! In the early 1800s, there were Christian churches such as the Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Catholics, and many others. However, these churches had become so tainted over the course of thousands of years that God was unable to use any of their already established footprints to restore the priceless truths that had been lost over the course of those centuries. In point of fact, the Lord communicated with Joseph and informed him that all of the world's religions, including Christianity, are rooted in evil and that not a single one of them does any good. That they have abandoned the gospel and do not observe its precepts is an indication of this. The Lord then acknowledges that he harbors resentment toward the people who live on earth as a result of the godlessness that they practice. So this is the Lord's explanation of what Christianity is all about, according to Joseph! The answer is that I do wonder why it is so necessary for Latter-day Saints to be viewed as Christians when the Lord himself characterized Christianity as something that is contrary to godliness. 

Another thing that worries me about trying to be recognized as a Christian is the great amount of arrogance that it takes to call oneself a Christian when Christians have an incredible amount of great history that has nothing at all to do with the gospel that we follow. Keep in mind that the gospel that we follow was removed from the world so that it may be shielded from all of the ungodliness that was taking place on the planet. While the activities of mankind on earth were slowly but surely tainting Christianity with their own sinful nature, our gospel was safe and sound someplace in the sky. This is the viewpoint that we hold. So for the life of me I can't understand why we want to embrace our past, but also to embrace the history of the Christians, the Christians that the Lord has stated was corrupted and he's angry at. Why would someone try to take a name that the Lord has specifically called out as being ungodly if He took the eternal gospel from the world along with the city of Enoch to preserve them from ungodliness? Christians did a lot of good before the everlasting gospel was established again in the 1830s, but we weren't part of that history. 

The manner in which we are going about attempting to gain acceptance as Christians is one more reason why I do not see why we are making such an effort, and in my opinion, this is also a really arrogant one. We want to be recognized as Christians, but at the same time, we're proclaiming that we're the only Christians who have priesthood authority from God, that we're the only Christians who have a baptism that is recognized by God, and that not only that, but because the baptisms that other Christians practice aren't valid, we will baptize Christians after they've passed away so that they can be a part of the "true Christianity!" In addition, no other sacrament can compare to ours; it is the only one that truly matters. Our eternal marriage is the only marriage rite that enables a husband and wife to be reunited with their heavenly father after they have passed away. In other words, we are essentially requesting that the Christians recognize us as Christians while at the same time informing them that their brand of Christianity is not a genuine kind of Christianity in the eyes of God. What kind of sense could possibly be made out of that? It doesn't make any sense to me! Out of all the thousands if not millions of Priest, Ministers, Bishops, Deacons and Pastors of Christianity, not one holds or practices under the legitimate priesthood of God according to our gospel. How will we ever be fully accepted as Christians while also claiming that our gospel views Christianity as ungodly?

 

[Sara H]

14 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

In fact, she said that she would not converse with an Evangelical who did not acknowledge that she was a Christian

Here's the Lord describing the religions of the world during the 1800s. This includes Christianity. This is the doctrine I feel we are trying to ignore when we ask Christians view us as Christians. 

 

Edited August 29, 2023 by Sara H

[webbles]

4 hours ago, Sara H said:

Here's the Lord describing the religions of the world during the 1800s. This includes Christianity. This is the doctrine I feel we are trying to ignore when we ask Christians view us as Christians. 

You seem to have a different definition of Christians than I do.  For me, a Christian is someone who believes in Christ.  That's it.  No other added definition.  Anyone who says the believe in Christ, is a Christian.  Since I believe in Christ, I want to be called Christian.  What is wrong with that?  Why can't the church consider itself a Christian church since all of us believe in Christ?  His name is even in the name of the church.

I understand that there are some people who try and define Christians in a more exclusive manner.  There's Christian sects that don't consider Catholics to be Christians.  But I don't think we should define it exclusively and I don't think the church does either.

[InCognitus]

5 hours ago, Sara H said:

The answer is that I do wonder why it is so necessary for Latter-day Saints to be viewed as Christians when the Lord himself characterized Christianity as something that is contrary to godliness. 

The Lord has never characterized Christianity as something contrary to godliness.  From the Book of Mormon, Alma 46:

Quote

13 And he fastened on his head-plate, and his breastplate, and his shields, and girded on his armor about his loins; and he took the pole, which had on the end thereof his rent coat, (and he called it the title of liberty) and he bowed himself to the earth, and he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren, so long as there should a band of Christians remain to possess the land—
 14 For thus were all the true believers of Christ, who belonged to the church of God, called by those who did not belong to the church.
15 And those who did belong to the church were faithful; yea, all those who were true believers in Christ took upon them, gladly, the name of Christ, or Christians as they were called, because of their belief in Christ who should come.
16 And therefore, at this time, Moroni prayed that the cause of the Christians, and the freedom of the land might be favored.
(Alma 46:13–16)

You seem to have a very incorrect view of what it means to be a Christian.

[Leaf474]

20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No.

You can, but that would indicate a "no" answer 

You have already seen the questions, there is no probing usually.

It's yes or no.

 

20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

If you answer "no" then you open up the door to discussion.

I just phrased it that way, about the proper answer, because I think questions 7 and 14 expect a No answer.

20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It is expected that all answers will be yes, or you would not be requesting the interview. The purpose of the interview is to get a recommend, not chat about what you still do not believe 

Thanks for the input ❤️

[mfbukowski]

17 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

 

I just phrased it that way, about the proper answer, because I think questions 7 and 14 expect a No answer.

Thanks for the input ❤️

Yes, I misspoke.

And Mr. Poke as well. 😳

[Leaf474]

20 hours ago, Navidad said:

Well my friend, I am an card-carrying Evangelical and I believe that my LDS friends can be Christians in the same way that my Baptist, Mennonite, Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox, and non-denominational friends can be Christians.

Thanks for the nice message ❤️

 

I was raised Evangelical, and possibly still am. Evangelicalism is, of course, a name for a broad movement, so there's lots of variation.

 

In the particular conversation I was thinking of, the Saint didn't think that the Evangelical in question (not myself) considered her a Christian.

 

I could agree that the Saints are or aren't Christians depending on which definition of Christianity is used 😀

 

20 hours ago, Navidad said:

I don't believe every LDS church member is a Christian any more than I believe every Presbyterian or Pentecostal or every member of any of the faiths I mentioned above is a Christian.

I believe people experience salvation as an individual not as a church-member. If you are an Evangelical, then let me ask you . . . have you ever witnessed to someone and asked them to say the sinner's prayer, and then went back to your church, or spouse, or youth group, and said "Wow, I witnessed to someone today and they accepted Christ, were born again, or asked the Lord into their hearts."

No, I haven't had that experience. But I think I get what you're saying 🙂

 

20 hours ago, Navidad said:

If so, at that point, what did they actually believe that made you make that statement? My guess is at that point they hadn't been baptized. No six week membership class yet. What did they know about eschatology, etc."

 

20 hours ago, Navidad said:

Are you old enough to ever have been to a Billy Graham crusade, or had someone come forward in a church service to give their heart to Christ?

No on the Graham crusade, yes to people coming forward, lots of times!

20 hours ago, Navidad said:

What did they believe at that point? What didn't they believe?

They probably didn't believe much. But from the Evangelical mindset, of course, a person doesn't need a lot of knowledge. Definitely though, a person is expected to grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus.

 

The churches I grew up in would tend to focus on a passage like this

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts 16%3A31&version=NASB

20 hours ago, Navidad said:

Also my LDS friends don't use the phrase "born again" (although some don't object to it), so they don't deal in the "full sense" of that phrase.

We've different experiences there 😀

 

I've chatted with saints on YouTube who used the phrase. You may wish to check out this talk

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2008/04/born-again?lang=eng#title1

 

"...it becomes clear that spiritual rebirth originates with faith in Jesus Christ..."

 

20 hours ago, Navidad said:

They separate salvation and exaltation. We Evangelicals split out salvation and sanctification. I am not equating exactly that distintion, but am pointing out a difference in the use of terms.

 

20 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am happy to talk back and forth with you any time about the "Evangelical mind." Our friends here on the forum would probably enjoy reading those conversations! Take care and best wishes.

Thanks for the offer, I'm sure we'll see each other a lot 👍 and I look forward to your take on things 🙂

[Leaf474]

19 hours ago, webbles said:

I would say the only thing that prevents God from going bad is His own internal moral compass.  By the time He achieved Godhood, He had perfected His moral compass and so He won't go bad.  But technically, He could decide to just go off the deep end and obliterate everything.

Thanks for the input ❤️

19 hours ago, webbles said:

I don't think it is that we want to be seen "in the same tradition as Christianity through the centuries" (though maybe the person you are talking to does).  For me, I want to be acknowledged that I do believe in Christ.  I recently received a door pamphlet from another Christian sect that explained why Mormons weren't Christians.  All the explanations were very basic: we believe Christ and satan are brothers, we believe in a restoration, we believe in a Heavenly Mother, we believe that God and Christ are not the same thing, etc.  I'm not particularly bothered by them doing that and even let my kids read the pamphlet (they found it odd how their beliefs were being twisted).  I get that we see things differently.  But we still believe in Christ and acknowledge His power in our lives.  That's why I want to be called Christian.

The particular Saint I was talking to had been raised Evangelical, indeed had an Mdiv from an Evangelical seminary, so she was well aware of the following idea.

 

Not that I want at all want to make this thread about Evangelicals ideas regarding Saints, but for Evangelicals there's a big question of "Is it the same Jesus?"

 

(A different Jesus = not a Christian, for many Evangelicals.)

 

So the question is are the differences significant enough to make it a different Jesus. She was saying No, and I was saying But some evangelicals are going to say Yes.

 

Also, I noticed that she kept wanting to rephrase it as "the Saints believe in the Jesus of the Bible." I didn't want to get into that, I wanted to focus on Evangelicals having a different interpretation of those parts of the Bible.

[Leaf474]

19 hours ago, Navidad said:

You clearly have closed your eyes to our situation for all these years. You are talking about a protocol that has never fit us. Missionaries have never ever visited us for the first time to find out if we are receptive. They have visited us to get a ride home, use the restroom, get some water, or make a call because their phone is dead. They have therefore never given us a baptismal challenge. I have never said no. It just has never happened. We were never and are not prospective investigators. Everyone in our ward knows that and I am sure the missionaries have been advised of that. We minister to them in times of needs. No purpose in that?

Temple presidents, mission presidents, the area presidency members, the bishopric, the stake presidency have all been our friends and know our situation. Stake PR directors have asked for our assistance at times. The retired Church PR managing director knows me and my situation. I consider him a friend. They each know we are not candidates for anything else than to be faithful-non-members. No one, including a GA emeritus has ever remonstrated us for that. I have met and interacted with other managing directors and general authorities.

Done? Yes it is probably now done. What has no purpose? Serving in ways the Holy Spirit has gifted us? No purpose? You will have to ask the members of our ward and stranded missionaries if our presence there and here has no purpose. That is not for you or me to decide. I will never want to be baptized. That is true. Our location and situation is unique. So long as my LDS baptism is a statement that I believe my previous baptism was of no spiritual benefit, and that the scores of folks I have baptized have been of no spiritual benefit, then I will never be baptized. Mennonites and Mormons are a general cultural curiosity here. I have given Firesides with bishops present on the faith and history of Mennonites, on the apostles in the colonies, on Mormons in the revolution. I have spoken to a lot of family reunions here on their heritage. Either my wife or I talk with someone from the ward every day.

You are stereotyping what you know over the last six years has been a non-stereotypical situation, or you haven't been paying attention. Its not fine for me. It is where God has led us to worship, fellowship, and minister for five full years with the full approval of those up to the area authority, mission authorities, temple authorities (some of my best friends in our stake and ward), the stake patriarch, and I can't think of who else. BYU religion professors, church history professors, chairs of Mormon studies, directors of LDS archives, and on and on. Anyone who wants to on this board is free to comment, as they wish. Take care.

I know this was written to someone else but I just wanted to clarify something.

 

Do you attend LDS church services? Social functions? Or is your contact just when people come to your house? Something else?

[Leaf474]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

My opinion.  By the time anyone gets resurrected, they have been purified of all sinfulness.

Well, something you can hopefully clarify. In one of my meetings with the missionaries, they talked about bad angels getting kicked out of heaven. My impression was that happened before humans were sent to Earth. Did I get that right? If so, were angels formed with evil inclinations? Were we formed that way?

10 hours ago, Calm said:

 Every kingdom is a kingdom of God’s glory.  Without sinful motivations in one’s nature, there is no reason to go bad, so it seems that even if logically one can say a god could choose evil as they have the opportunity and the capability, but lack the inclination so there is no reason why they would.

 

10 hours ago, Calm said:

PS:  In regards to the lower kingdoms being servants and reminding you of the greek pantheon, we all are servants of the Most High when we answer his call.  One use of servants therefore is likely not saying they are a lower caste, but rather that they are still part of God’s kingdom given the following phrase could be understood to exclude them from God’s kingdom without this added context….another way of saying this below could be they are God’s people even if they cannot be in the Celestial Kingdom (this last is why some believe there is no progression between kingdoms).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/76?lang=eng&id=112#p112

“Servants of the Most High” refers to missionaries and church leaders anciently and modern.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/dan/3?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/acts/16?lang=eng&id=17#p17

https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/chd/transcript?lang=eng&name=transcript-for-greenwood-william-reminiscence-in-william-greenwood-family-197-10

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-thomas-s-monson/chapter-15-missionary-service-a-sacred-charge?lang=eng

Sara H’s verses, otoh, (posted early) are from a different section dealing with the covenant of marriage and not the various kingdoms and describe those who are not married by the everlasting covenant vs those who are and who receive exaltation and therefore could include angels in the Celestial Kingdom.  Some have speculated the three divisions of the Celestial Kingdom in section 131 means the most advanced level is exaltation, the second is for those who have their endowment, but have not been married, and the third is for those who have been baptized….but this is imo pure speculation.  I don’t believe we can even be sure the “celestial glory” of Sec 131 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/131?lang=eng#p7 is referring to the most advanced kingdom of glory, it could be referring to all of heaven, iow the already described three kingdoms of glory.  Inconsistent terminology is very common in the early modern church (using Jehovah to refer to the Father or the Son; the Urim and Thummin being used to refer to the biblical instrument, the Interpreters, and the seer stone; celestial meaning heavenly or divine or a specific kingdom of God’s Glory).

My bold

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng#p8

Thanks for all the info 🙂 The part that reminded me of the Greek pantheon was something about Gods caring for us. Kind of like in Greek mythology where there are humans in one realm being cared for (and sometimes hindered by) Gods in another realm.

[Leaf474]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

 

The vast majority of Saints I have talked to just want to be acknowledged as believing in and following Christ to the best of their understanding when they insist they are Christian.

Right, and I don't want to belabor this (unless someone wants me to go into more detail 😀) but from an Evangelical (and probably Catholic and Orthodox) point of view, it appears to be a different Jesus. So... not Christian in their view.

10 hours ago, Calm said:

They actually see themselves as belonging to a different tradition/branch of Christianity as the Gospel was restored and not reformed.  This kind of ignores the beliefs and traditions that got brought in unintentionally, so I don’t think we are completely independent of historical Christianity, but our authority is not seen as part of any other Christian faith tradition as it came from God by angelic messengers.  Off line in 60 years I have only had one Saint insist they were not Christian.  He was from the South and had previously had bad experiences with antimormons, some of who were ministers of Christian faiths.  It was an emotional rejection rather than a rational one because he was offended the rest of us Saints in the class still identified and fought for the right to be seen as Christians, iow believers in and seekers of Christ.  I have had much more experience with Saints who were offended at being called Mormon (this was prior to President Nelson’s call to set the nickname aside for certain things) because they were tired of the confusion, claims we worshiped Mormon (do Lutherans worship Luther?), etc.

I think the misunderstanding we want to be part of the tradition of Christianity comes from we (members in general) don’t view Christianity as a “tradition” generally speaking.  Christianity would be defined in this context as a collection of all who believe in Christ.  It is a very simple, basic construct.

 

10 hours ago, Calm said:

As far as the full “born again” experience, you would likely have to define that for Saints to get consistent answers as many Saints tend to define it differently depending on the context.  Many only know some other Christians call themselves “born again” and have no problem accepting they are fully such, it would be seen as the same as calling ourselves “Latter-day Saints”.  

If by the “LDS point of view” you mean repentance and baptism, I agree we wouldn’t agree that those who haven’t been baptized by the proper god given priesthood authority are “born again” in our terminology given baptism and confirmation are part of being born again in our teachings.

But then most Saints aren’t fully born again yet because we haven’t been fully changed to a state of righteousness.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/27?lang=eng

I had defined Born again as whatever Jesus was referring to in John 3. That requires being born of the water and the Spirit, which the Saints I was talking to said was baptism in water and baptism by the Spirit. They also said that baptism by the Spirit required water baptism from someone carrying priesthood authority... so not available to Evangelicals. Thus, not born again in that sense. (But that kind of Born again is very important to Evangelicals.)

"Most certainly I tell you, unless one is born of water and spirit, he can’t enter into God’s Kingdom. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Don’t marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’"