The Mysteries of the Spirit World

[rodheadlee]

On 8/28/2023 at 6:58 AM, Navidad said:

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?

I wanted you to look at it from Christ's point of view. It's okay brother Navidad I don't articulate myself very well anyways.

[Leaf474]

8 hours ago, Sara H said:

Yes

No. 

Thanks for the direct responses!

[Leaf474]

8 hours ago, Sara H said:

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...

Thanks for all the info 🙂

8 hours ago, Sara H said:

...all of the world's religions, including Christianity, are rooted in evil and that not a single one of them does any good.

Well, that's interesting! Do you have a reference for that?

8 hours ago, Sara H said:

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...

 

8 hours ago, Sara H said:

...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?

 

About baptisms, yes, that was something else I brought up in the conversation I was talking about with the Sister. Why be concerned about someone saying that you're not a Christian, if at the same time you're saying that they're not really baptized? Anyways, I don't want to start any kind of "fight" here, but what you're saying makes a lot of sense to me 😀

 

PS I hope you don't mind me chopping up your post. It's the easiest way I could think of to kind of extract the parts I wanted to focus on 🙂

[Leaf474]

8 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. 

 

Yes, you did have a reference 😀

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Leaf474 said:

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 😀

 

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

 

 

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

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

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..."

 

 

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

Thanks for the reply. I agree that the Evangelical community is a broad movement with lots of variation. I have been suggesting that my LDS friends on this forum for six years now. I know many Fundamentalists and some Evangelicals who say that Mormons aren't Christians. But they are talking about a movement (to use your word) with broad doctrinal beliefs and lumping all into one category, while at the same time offering fellowship to others, one person at a time. I wish we would do that to everyone without excluding any groups per se, because groups don't experience salvation, only individuals do. Some Christians grow in grace (sanctification). Others do not. Some Christians grow in knowledge and wisdom (another aspect of sanctification). Others do not. Take care and best wishes here on the forum.

[Sara H]

36 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Fundamentalists and some Evangelicals who say that Mormons aren't Christians.

If you don't mind me asking, does one need to believe that there is only ONE God in order to call themselves Christian? Every single Christian I have ever spoken with is of the idea that there is only one God, however I am of the belief that there are multiple Gods. Also, I have the potential to become a god someday. 

I have many Christian friends that believe my religion is the most polytheistic religion in the world considering we think millions of our brothers and sisters can also become God's. 

Edited August 29, 2023 by Sara H

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Leaf474 said:

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?

 

1 hour ago, Leaf474 said:

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

Hi, yes we attended faithfully the local historic ward near our home here in Chihuahua for six years, more or less every Sunday unless I was speaking somewhere else. Under the authority of two of the bishops in a row we were very involved in every aspect of the ward except of course for temple work at the little temple that was dedicated here in 1999. Both my wife and I substitute taught in Sunday School, we both prayed and spoke in Sacrament service (gave the message in Evangelical terms). I did a lot of special music, and took our turns to clean. We were not allowed to tithe, but were allowed to give to the fast fund. I have been very active in the MHA (Mormon History Association) and have given presentations, published articles, and generally worked with the Church History Department in both SLC and Mexico City on all things Mexican Mormon colonies related. I give lots of talks to families who come down here for family reunions. Next week I will do one for the Allred family, who have many ancestors in both the LDS colonies and what became the LDS fundamentalist communities here in Mexico.

We have often had groups here in our home for social events, and for teaching on Mormon Mexican history. I love church (general and LDS) history and all things related to religious history here in Mexico. We retired here in a small village and started attending the ward for three reasons: 1. We wanted a place where my wife could worship in English (the ward is an English language ward); 2. I wanted to learn what I could about LDS doctrine because doctrine and history are so often interrelated; 3. We wanted an opportunity to have a church home where we could worship, fellowship, and use our ministry gifts.

Recently we have a new bishop who decided we should not have been doing all that we had been doing in the ward since we are not members of the church. After six years, that was both a surprise and a hurt. There are some here on the forum that would tell you it was inevitable and that our first two bishops erred in allowing us to do so much as non-members. We are Mennonites by background, but my last pastorate was in a non-denominational Evangelical church, so we were quite used to having diverse of points of view. I was a superinendent in large urban school districts, so I was quite used to diversity of viewpoints. Our new bishop? Not so much! That catches you up. This month marks my sixth year on this forum. The vast majority of the folks here have been very kind and patient with me, although I can ask a million questions and generally keep asking until I understand. I also write too much, so in that spirit I will wish you well!

[webbles]

17 minutes ago, Sara H said:

If you don't mind me asking, does one need to believe that there is only ONE God in order to call themselves Christian? Every single Christian I have ever spoken with is of the idea that there is only one God, however I am of the belief that there are multiple Gods. Also, I have the potential to become a god someday. 

I have many Christian friends that believe my religion is the most polytheistic religion in the world considering we think millions of our brothers and sisters can also become God's. 

I think polytheism is the wrong term for us.  Yes, we believe that there are multiple gods but we only worship one of them.  And He is the only one that affects us.  There's some other terms (monolatrism, henotheism, etc) that are probably closer but still off the base.

[Navidad]

40 minutes ago, Sara H said:

If you don't mind me asking, does one need to believe that there is only ONE God in order to call themselves Christian? Every single Christian I have ever spoken with is of the idea that there is only one God, however I am of the belief that there are multiple Gods. Also, I have the potential to become a god someday. 

You are asking me so I will give you my answer. I did a mission in Africa among tribal people. Many were polygamous and many believed in more than one God, in fact they were animists. When the missionaries would preach to them, if they indicated that they wanted to repent of their sin (in appropriate cultural terms), believe in Jesus (take on the Jesus path), and put their trust in Him, they would be considered a "saved or a Christian. Over time people were taught more, but it was very difficult due to cultural expectations and fear of powerful men (shamans) in the villages. At no point in that process of growth, which not all achieved very well, did anyone suggest they were not Christians.

I later served on the board of directors of a mission and we had lots of discussions about baptizing polygamists, but that is another story (we decided yes, by the way). I would consider the beliefs that you described as appendages to use Joseph Smith's term. I believe in order for someone to call themselves a Christian, one needs to admit ones tendency to sin, repent of that, believe in Christ's death, resurrection - a sacrifice for our sin. There is a prayer, often called the sinner's prayer that many Evangelicals encourage their prospects to pray. One form of it is this: "Dear Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner, and I ask for Your forgiveness. I believe You died for my sins and rose from the dead. I turn from my sins and invite You to come into my heart and life." When someone prays that prayer in sincerity (who can judge?) then from that moment forward that person is a Christian and experiences the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I know that is much too easy for my LDS friends, but Christ paid the price, and by his mercy and grace gifts the new convert with salvation. Now it is always best if that person grows in grace and knowledge. We call that sanctification. I believe that is a process that will go on into the eternities as we learn and grow at the feet of the Savior.

For most Evangelicals (remember it is a broad community) no ordinance is necessary. Baptism is a testimony of an already accomplished act. Often times there are classes for those who want to join a church, but that isn't to seal or make them a Christian. When they are baptized or join a church they are already a Christian. Some people become Christians in their living room, in the woods, in a mall, on the street, or yes, possibly in a church, but church is not the means by which one is saved. I is an individual thing.

Acknowledging Christ and his atonement is key as in the above prayer. It doesn't matter if someone understands how the virgin birth happened, whether or not humans had a premortal state, whether there are three levels of heaven, or one, whether the millennium is metaphorical or literal, or anything else. That is in a nutshell the majority Evangelical point of view. Fundamentalists might add a few more prerequisites, but if provided the opportunity will gladly invite someone to become "born again" as did Christ with the thief on the cross or the woman at the well.

For the Evangelical, faith, grace, mercy and relying on the worthiness of Christ are the key. Our new friend Leaf may want to chime in, offer something different, or disagree with me, but you asked me and what I have described is my thinking and what I would have done as an Evangelical pastor.

[Leaf474]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

 

Hi, yes we attended faithfully the local historic ward near our home here in Chihuahua for six years, more or less every Sunday unless I was speaking somewhere else. Under the authority of two of the bishops in a row we were very involved in every aspect of the ward except of course for temple work at the little temple that was dedicated here in 1999. Both my wife and I substitute taught in Sunday School, we both prayed and spoke in Sacrament service (gave the message in Evangelical terms). I did a lot of special music, and took our turns to clean. We were not allowed to tithe, but were allowed to give to the fast fund. I have been very active in the MHA (Mormon History Association) and have given presentations, published articles, and generally worked with the Church History Department in both SLC and Mexico City on all things Mexican Mormon colonies related. I give lots of talks to families who come down here for family reunions. Next week I will do one for the Allred family, who have many ancestors in both the LDS colonies and what became the LDS fundamentalist communities here in Mexico.

We have often had groups here in our home for social events, and for teaching on Mormon Mexican history. I love church (general and LDS) history and all things related to religious history here in Mexico. We retired here in a small village and started attending the ward for three reasons: 1. We wanted a place where my wife could worship in English (the ward is an English language ward); 2. I wanted to learn what I could about LDS doctrine because doctrine and history are so often interrelated; 3. We wanted an opportunity to have a church home where we could worship, fellowship, and use our ministry gifts.

Recently we have a new bishop who decided we should not have been doing all that we had been doing in the ward since we are not members of the church. After six years, that was both a surprise and a hurt. There are some here on the forum that would tell you it was inevitable and that our first two bishops erred in allowing us to do so much as non-members. We are Mennonites by background, but my last pastorate was in a non-denominational Evangelical church, so we were quite used to having diverse of points of view. I was a superinendent in large urban school districts, so I was quite used to diversity of viewpoints. Our new bishop? Not so much! That catches you up. This month marks my sixth year on this forum. The vast majority of the folks here have been very kind and patient with me, although I can ask a million questions and generally keep asking until I understand. I also write too much, so in that spirit I will wish you well!

Thanks for the info 🙂 If you don't mind a similar question, if you lived in a large metropolitan area with tons of churches, what kind would you pick?

[Leaf474]

1 hour ago, Sara H said:

If you don't mind me asking, does one need to believe that there is only ONE God in order to call themselves Christian? Every single Christian I have ever spoken with is of the idea that there is only one God, however I am of the belief that there are multiple Gods. Also, I have the potential to become a god someday. 

I have many Christian friends that believe my religion is the most polytheistic religion in the world considering we think millions of our brothers and sisters can also become God's. 

 

49 minutes ago, Navidad said:

You are asking me so I will give you my answer. I did a mission in Africa among tribal people. Many were polygamous and many believed in more than one God, in fact they were animists. When the missionaries would preach to them, if they indicated that they wanted to repent of their sin (in appropriate cultural terms), believe in Jesus (take on the Jesus path), and put their trust in Him, they would be considered a "saved or a Christian. Over time people were taught more, but it was very difficult due to cultural expectations and fear of powerful men (shamans) in the villages. At no point in that process of growth, which not all achieved very well, did anyone suggest they were not Christians.

I later served on the board of directors of a mission and we had lots of discussions about baptizing polygamists, but that is another story (we decided yes, by the way). I would consider the beliefs that you described as appendages to use Joseph Smith's term. I believe in order for someone to call themselves a Christian, one needs to admit ones tendency to sin, repent of that, believe in Christ's death, resurrection - a sacrifice for our sin. There is a prayer, often called the sinner's prayer that many Evangelicals encourage their prospects to pray. One form of it is this: "Dear Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner, and I ask for Your forgiveness. I believe You died for my sins and rose from the dead. I turn from my sins and invite You to come into my heart and life." When someone prays that prayer in sincerity (who can judge?) then from that moment forward that person is a Christian and experiences the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I know that is much too easy for my LDS friends, but Christ paid the price, and by his mercy and grace gifts the new convert with salvation. Now it is always best if that person grows in grace and knowledge. We call that sanctification. I believe that is a process that will go on into the eternities as we learn and grow at the feet of the Savior.

For most Evangelicals (remember it is a broad community) no ordinance is necessary. Baptism is a testimony of an already accomplished act. Often times there are classes for those who want to join a church, but that isn't to seal or make them a Christian. When they are baptized or join a church they are already a Christian. Some people become Christians in their living room, in the woods, in a mall, on the street, or yes, possibly in a church, but church is not the means by which one is saved. I is an individual thing.

Acknowledging Christ and his atonement is key as in the above prayer. It doesn't matter if someone understands how the virgin birth happened, whether or not humans had a premortal state, whether there are three levels of heaven, or one, whether the millennium is metaphorical or literal, or anything else. That is in a nutshell the majority Evangelical point of view. Fundamentalists might add a few more prerequisites, but if provided the opportunity will gladly invite someone to become "born again" as did Christ with the thief on the cross or the woman at the well.

For the Evangelical, faith, grace, mercy and relying on the worthiness of Christ are the key. Our new friend Leaf may want to chime in, offer something different, or disagree with me, but you asked me and what I have described is my thinking and what I would have done as an Evangelical pastor.

Thanks for the invitation to chime in, @Navidad . I was interested in responding to @Sara H 's post, but didn't want to be always jumping in 😀

 

So personally, I'm not hung up on terms. If someone wants to call themselves a Christian, that's fine. I think CS Lewis said a person is Christian if they claim to be.

 

But as a matter of understanding most Evangelicals, belief in multiple Gods would be right out as far as considering who is Christian. And we're talking about true Gods here, not powerful humans or spirits. There's a passage in Psalms that says something like "I said, 'You are gods'". Evangelicals would see that as referring to human judges or something, not true Gods.

 

Saying there's only one God with whom we have to do would make little difference, just the existence of other Gods is right out. In my experience 🙂

 

So... the Christians in Africa, did they tend to think of the father of Jesus as the highest God?

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

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?

Angels are human messengers or servants of the Most High. You could call all humans angels when they are in heaven if you want and it sounds like this is what the missionaries did. 
 

God told us all somehow (we call it a Council, but there would have been billions present, so either we didn’t take up much spiritual space as well as physical or perhaps the Council consisted of joining all our minds together no matter where we were) about his plan to send us to earth to get a body and have a not terribly fun life experience where we would need to learn many things, die and learn lots more stuff so eventually we could it only live with God again, but live like God as well. 
 

Some of us didn’t like the idea that we would be able to choose and possibly make the wrong choices…that is at least how most LDS interpret what the scripture teaches, that some of us didn’t want to take the risk of losing out so they just rejected the whole thing, but I think it was likely more complicated than that because it doesn’t make sense to say when you don’t want something, really don’t want something to not only say I am not going to even try to get it and then sulk in hopes that the one in charge will change their mind, but to make it much worse by rebelling.  Why would you fight against God because you want to be absolutely sure you can get back with God and be like him?  You are taking away all possibility of that which you really want. So my guess it was more about God being in charge and not letting them do what they want and still giving them the gift of being like him.  That sounds like a very human tendency (“if you love me, you will give me what I want no matter what I do”).
 

But who knows, maybe even in heaven we are stupid enough to about ourselves in the foot and would rather go to hell than admit we are wrong. 

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

But as a matter of understanding most Evangelicals, belief in multiple Gods would be right out as far as considering who is Christian. And we're talking about true Gods here, not powerful humans or spirits. There's a passage in Psalms that says something like "I said, 'You are gods'". Evangelicals would see that as referring to human judges or something, not true Gods.

 

Saying there's only one God with whom we have to do would make little difference, just the existence of other Gods is right out. In my experience

There are Evangelical scholars today who absolutely believe that Ps. 82:1 refers to lesser gods that belong to a divine council . . . not human judges (the traditional view) but actual beings between God as we know Him (whom we worship) and lesser types of divinities, varying from angels to demigods. Dr. Michael Heiser, who taught at Liberty, Grace, Taylor, etc. (all bonafide Evangelical schools)  leading the way.

But that's not the point. The point is an individual person professes Christ as his Savior and trusts in His atonement as the means to salvation, as many Mormons do. Who is going to deny them the label of Christian, regardless of other heterodox ideas?  The core question here is this: What is necessary for salvation? Not orthodoxy, but salvation? What beliefs save someone? Does a lack of belief in the trinity doom the otherwise Christian to eternal punishment? That would doom a whole lot of Pentecostals, especially Oneness Pentecostals. I don't hear anyone denying them the label of Christian. It always fascinates me how some Evangelicals who delight in evangelism, pick out certain groups to deny them the label of Christianity en mass, but yet would insist on salvation being an individual circumstance, granting the woman at the well or the thief on the cross the label Christian, when at that point they knew nothing about nothing other than proclaiming their faith in Christ. When I was a boy (I am now 74) it was the Catholics who were hopelessly lost. Now it is the Mormons. I say, Christ will save whom He will, especially at the Last Judgment where I believe there will be a wideness in God's mercy.

Edited August 30, 2023 by Navidad

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I later served on the board of directors of a mission and we had lots of discussions about baptizing polygamists, but that is another story (we decided yes, by the way). I would consider the beliefs that you described as appendages to use Joseph Smith's term. I believe in order for someone to call themselves a Christian, one needs to admit ones tendency to sin, repent of that, believe in Christ's death, resurrection - a sacrifice for our sin. There is a prayer, often called the sinner's prayer that many Evangelicals encourage their prospects to pray. One form of it is this: "Dear Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner, and I ask for Your forgiveness. I believe You died for my sins and rose from the dead. I turn from my sins and invite You to come into my heart and life." When someone prays that prayer in sincerity (who can judge?) then from that moment forward that person is a Christian and experiences the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I know that is much too easy for my LDS friends, but Christ paid the price, and by his mercy and grace gifts the new convert with salvation. Now it is always best if that person grows in grace and knowledge. We call that sanctification. I believe that is a process that will go on into the eternities as we learn and grow at the feet of the Savior.

Is it possible for someone to experience the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and then quit the sanctification process?

Because we believe that the first principal of the gospel is "Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ" (Article of Faith 4).  Without faith in Him, there's no start.  We also believe that someone with sincerity will feel the Holy Ghost.  It is probably different than your concept of "indwelling of the Holy Spirit" but there is some similarity.  If the person doesn't do anything after that, the Holy Ghost would leave him/her.  The next step is to be baptized and confirmed to receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost.  After that, the person will grow in the gospel (similar to "grace and knowledge") over their mortal life and into the eternities.  At any point, a person can stop the process and when that happens, they loose the Gift of the Holy Ghost and are no longer on the path, though Christ will always accept them back (either in this life or the next).

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

So... the Christians in Africa, did they tend to think of the father of Jesus as the highest God?

The Christians in the deepest bush situations in Africa or anywhere else know nothing about Jesus as the highest God. They really know very little about Jesus at all. They may never have heard of Him three days before. But whether LDS, Baptist, Evangelical Free, Methodist, SIM, or AIM International, if they confess Christ as Savior for their sins (with some promptings), they are celebrated as Christians or in the LDS case, as members of the LDS church (after baptism).

[Navidad]

6 minutes ago, webbles said:

Is it possible for someone to experience the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and then quit the sanctification process?

Because we believe that the first principal of the gospel is "Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ" (Article of Faith 4).  Without faith in Him, there's no start.  We also believe that someone with sincerity will feel the Holy Ghost.  It is probably different than your concept of "indwelling of the Holy Spirit" but there is some similarity.  If the person doesn't do anything after that, the Holy Ghost would leave him/her.  The next step is to be baptized and confirmed to receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost.  After that, the person will grow in the gospel (similar to "grace and knowledge") over their mortal life and into the eternities.  At any point, a person can stop the process and when that happens, they loose the Gift of the Holy Ghost and are no longer on the path, though Christ will always accept them back (either in this life or the next).

The answer to your first question is an absolute yes. Many Christians either quit or never begin the sanctification process. Evangelicals often seem to be salvation-centrist and then lose sight of the importance of sanctification. The presence of the Holy Spirit is not a matter of feeling, etc. it is a promise in Galatians 3. The loss of the Holy Spirit is a bit trickier. There are Evangelicals who would say that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit can indeed be lost; there are others who say no way. The Spirit may lie dormant and unused, but will never leave the person who truly made a commitment of faith. They would affirm that there are only one or two sins big enough to cause the loss of the Holy Spirit.

[webbles]

15 minutes ago, Navidad said:

The answer to your first question is an absolute yes. Many Christians either quit or never begin the sanctification process. Evangelicals often seem to be salvation-centrist and then lose sight of the importance of sanctification. The presence of the Holy Spirit is not a matter of feeling, etc. it is a promise in Galatians 3. The loss of the Holy Spirit is a bit trickier. There are Evangelicals who would say that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit can indeed be lost; there are others who say no way. The Spirit may lie dormant and unused, but will never leave the person who truly made a commitment of faith. They would affirm that there are only one or two sins big enough to cause the loss of the Holy Spirit.

What do you mean that "the presence of the Holy Spirit is not a matter of feeling, etc. it is a promise in Galatians 3".  It isn't something you feel?  What is it?

[Navidad]

13 minutes ago, webbles said:

What do you mean that "the presence of the Holy Spirit is not a matter of feeling, etc. it is a promise in Galatians 3".  It isn't something you feel?  What is it?

Feelings are all too human . . . subject to a variety of emotions, physical conditions, pain, mood, experience, etc. The presence of the Holy Spirit is a covenant-a promise. According to Gal 3: 14&29. It is a promise perceived by faith. We faith it, even when we don't feel it. The word used for promise is a "binding declaration of intent." I really like that. It goes way beyond what we can conceive with our human senses. The Holy Spirit is with us because that is God's binding declaration of intent" for those who claim His son as their Savior. I hope that helps.

[webbles]

15 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Feelings are all too human . . . subject to a variety of emotions, physical conditions, pain, mood, experience, etc. The presence of the Holy Spirit is a covenant-a promise. According to Gal 3: 14&29. It is a promise perceived by faith. We faith it, even when we don't feel it. The word used for promise is a "binding declaration of intent." I really like that. It goes way beyond what we can conceive with our human senses. The Holy Spirit is with us because that is God's binding declaration of intent" for those who claim His son as their Savior. I hope that helps.

How do you know you received the Holy Spirit?  Do you feel it at some point?  Is this something that is a part of you, kind of like a merging of you and the Holy Spirit?  What does the Holy Spirit do for you?

I ask because we focus quit a bit on following the Holy Ghost in our life.  As part of the confirmation process, we are told to "receive the Holy Ghost".  So, we aren't given the Holy Ghost, we need to accept Him into our life.  We need to keep ourselves worthy to be able to hear His promptings.  He is always there to help us (as promised) but we have to be listening.

[Navidad]

12 hours ago, webbles said:

How do you know you received the Holy Spirit?  Do you feel it at some point?  Is this something that is a part of you, kind of like a merging of you and the Holy Spirit?  What does the Holy Spirit do for you?

I ask because we focus quit a bit on following the Holy Ghost in our life.  As part of the confirmation process, we are told to "receive the Holy Ghost".  So, we aren't given the Holy Ghost, we need to accept Him into our life.  We need to keep ourselves worthy to be able to hear His promptings.  He is always there to help us (as promised) but we have to be listening.

We focus quite a bit on the "assurance" of having the Holy Spirit (knowing it) based on the promise of God as I said previously. I would say yes, it can, at times be felt, but that is not the evidence or the assurance. I have no objection to the word "merging." The Holy Spirit acts in and for the non-LDS Christian exactly as I have heard described in the LDS tradition.

I have perhaps a unique (not better or worse, just unique) set of experiences in that I have observed most likely hundreds of baptisms, confirmations, and what I would deem initiation rites across many differing cultural, mostly religious traditions. Many of them were baptismal or confirmation rites in differing types of Christian traditions, some were outside of Christianity altogether, but they all were for the purpose of signifying, joining, belonging, to a group, clan, coming-of-age; many with a sense of a merging with the Holy Spirit, or in non-Christian traditions, a higher power, or in some kind of syncretism of the same, as in indigenous traditions, both those influenced by Christianity, Islam, or purely indigenous. When twenty, I was invited to be a participant observer in such a ceremony in tribal Africa that was a mixture of indigenous and Islamic traditions. Today 54 years later that particular group is predominantly Muslim with a few remaining tribal vestiges. It was an experience I will never forget. Actually quite frightening, but that was its intent. Sorry, I digress.

In the Christian world, including the LDS, some syncretistic offshoots of Catholicism, and many other denominational variants of baptism, confirmations, I have seen a significant variety of responses to the experience itself. The majority of individuals (even in group rites) of those undergoing such an experience have exhibited little or no emotional or physical reaction. I have also observed joy, crying, bodily shaking, significant emotive reactions, often more on the part of the observers than the participants, especially parents of children undergoing such things. I myself conducted the experience in different cultures as well, in African tribal situations, African urban situations, Chinese Baptist situations, here in Mexico, even in the Pacific Ocean. I have observed in LDS, Pentecostal, Lutheran (both conservative and state-connected in Europe, many Catholic, non-denominational, Fundamentalist, Orthodox, Anglican, Episcopal, etc rites. Every LDS baptism I have observed has been of eight-year olds. The emotional reaction has been on the part of the family members, not the participants, both in the baptism and in the confirmation laying-on-of hands afterwards. Being around the families a lot, I have never observed a observable difference in the child before or after (not that I have tried to conduct a formalized version of that observation). I simply am (was) around them at picnics, baseball games, youth activities, family dinners, etc. That isn't a criticism or a denigration, it is just a comment. I would say the same about any child in any other tradition I have participated in or observed.

The most interesting thing to me about the LDS experience is how to some small degree our presence in the ward, at times seemed to disrupt the doctrinal teaching or certainty regarding the Holy Spirit (as understood by them). Perhaps that is what concerned our new bishop about our participation? I don't know. He never said, nor did he ever participate in any of those conversations.

I am aware of a number of conversations, some  of which took place in our presence, including Monday evening of this very week about how the members of our ward and stake can "feel" the Spirit in my wife and I when speaking, singing, testifying, etc. when we are not LDS? That seems, to them to be in direct violation of what they are told about the limitations of non-LDS Christians. It seems delightful to some and disconcerting to others. Then others seek to solve the dilemma by referring back to the Light of Christ or the possibility of occasional visitations of the Holy Spirit in the lives of non-LDS Christians. That seems to be a doctrine that is evolving.

It is also not something I am used to. . . . I have never heard another Christian group that denies the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to all Christians of every other group. We have a little temple in our community. I once made a comment that the Holy Spirit was active in the temple whenever there were LDS Christians in it. Those listening (in a discussion in a hallway) looked rather strange at me. They seemed to have never thought that the Holy Spirit doesn't indwell buildings as well as individuals. To me, the Bible seems very clear on that, but to them the Holy Spirit indwells that building whether it is morning, noon, or night or no matter what day because it in and of itself is somehow sacred. Interesting! It made me rethink my position which is a good thing. It might have made some of them rethink their position, which in most cases is not a good thing. In Africa there were challenges to new believers who thought that the Holy Spirit surely must indwell trees as well, especially the Baobab tree which had lots of gravitas and religious significance to it.

I don't know if I have answered your questions but I have to run. I have presentations to give this Saturday and Monday, one to a strictly LDS group and one to a community festival in the city close to us. If any of you know any Allreds who are coming here this week for a family reunion, they will most likely be hearing a presentation from me on their family history here in Mexico! It was an Allred (Rulon) who was killed in the 70s in SLC by two LeBaron women. He was the Prophet, President, Seer, and Revelator of one of the largest Fundamentalist Mormon communities in the US, Canada, and Mexico (The AUB - Apostolic United Brethren). He was born into a strong and very active LDS family about five miles from where I am writing this. The LeBarons live an hour south of here. Whenever Joseph F. Smith would come here as president of the church, he would stay in the Allred community. He was good friends with the Stouts, Blacks, and Allreds of that particular LDS colony. Sorry I digress. Take care.

 

[Leaf474]

16 hours ago, Navidad said:

There are Evangelical scholars today who absolutely believe that Ps. 82:1 refers to lesser gods that belong to a divine council . . . not human judges (the traditional view) but actual beings between God as we know Him (whom we worship) and lesser types of divinities, varying from angels to demigods. Dr. Michael Heiser, who taught at Liberty, Grace, Taylor, etc. (all bonafide Evangelical schools)  leading the way.

Thanks for the nice message. In LDS theology, those gods are on the same level as God, not lesser gods... Am I right about that?

 

That's interesting about those Evangelical scholars. At the same time, I think it's safe to say, as a general truth, that Evangelicals believe in just one God.

 

16 hours ago, Navidad said:

But that's not the point. The point is an individual person professes Christ as his Savior and trusts in His atonement as the means to salvation, as many Mormons do. Who is going to deny them the label of Christian, regardless of other heterodox ideas?

Your question may be rhetorical, but but many Evangelicals would say We do. (I'm not saying that I do 🙂)

 

The almost knee jerk reasoning is that it's a different Christ. The reasoning, which may or may not hold up, would go something like this:

Is the Jesus who is one of billions (or an infinite number) of Gods/angels/humans essentially the same as the Jesus who is the incarnation of the only true God?

 

Most Evangelicals are going to answer No.

 

I also want to say at this point that a big reason I'm talking about this is just to increase understanding. I'm trying not to sway anyone 😀

 

16 hours ago, Navidad said:

The core question here is this: What is necessary for salvation?

Well, just a bit of disagreement there... I'm thinking the core question is whether Evangelicals have any valid reasons for saying the Saints aren't Christians.

 

Many Evangelicals will allow the people who have never heard the gospel can be saved, which, I think, indicates a separation in their thinking between salvation and being a Christian.

 

(I'm going to stop here and get some food. But I'll be back with more exciting comments on other parts of your post 😀)

 

16 hours ago, Navidad said:

Not orthodoxy, but salvation? What beliefs save someone? Does a lack of belief in the trinity doom the otherwise Christian to eternal punishment? That would doom a whole lot of Pentecostals, especially Oneness Pentecostals. I don't hear anyone denying them the label of Christian. It always fascinates me how some Evangelicals who delight in evangelism, pick out certain groups to deny them the label of Christianity en mass, but yet would insist on salvation being an individual circumstance, granting the woman at the well or the thief on the cross the label Christian, when at that point they knew nothing about nothing other than proclaiming their faith in Christ. When I was a boy (I am now 74) it was the Catholics who were hopelessly lost. Now it is the Mormons. I say, Christ will save whom He will, especially at the Last Judgment where I believe there will be a wideness in God's mercy.

 

[Leaf474]

16 hours ago, Navidad said:

There are Evangelical scholars today who absolutely believe that Ps. 82:1 refers to lesser gods that belong to a divine council . . . not human judges (the traditional view) but actual beings between God as we know Him (whom we worship) and lesser types of divinities, varying from angels to demigods. Dr. Michael Heiser, who taught at Liberty, Grace, Taylor, etc. (all bonafide Evangelical schools)  leading the way.

But that's not the point. The point is an individual person professes Christ as his Savior and trusts in His atonement as the means to salvation, as many Mormons do. Who is going to deny them the label of Christian, regardless of other heterodox ideas?  The core question here is this: What is necessary for salvation? Not orthodoxy, but salvation? What beliefs save someone?

 

16 hours ago, Navidad said:

Does a lack of belief in the trinity doom the otherwise Christian to eternal punishment? That would doom a whole lot of Pentecostals, especially Oneness Pentecostals. I don't hear anyone denying them the label of Christian.

That's a good observation. I think most Evangelicals would say that the Oneness Pentecostals still believe in the deity of Jesus (a unique deity, not one shared by all of us) and thus believe in essentially the same Jesus.

 

16 hours ago, Navidad said:

It always fascinates me how some Evangelicals who delight in evangelism, pick out certain groups to deny them the label of Christianity en mass, but yet would insist on salvation being an individual circumstance, granting the woman at the well or the thief on the cross the label Christian, when at that point they knew nothing about nothing other than proclaiming their faith in Christ. When I was a boy (I am now 74) it was the Catholics who were hopelessly lost. Now it is the Mormons.

Suppose we take the Jehovah's Witnesses as an example - and I'm interested in hearing input from the Saints on this as well 🤔

 

You probably already know this, but they say that Jesus is a created being, created out of nothing - indeed, the first thing created. He is not God (whose name is Jehovah) in any way, nor will he ever be. He is a completely separate being from the Jehovah of the Old Testament.

 

Is the Jesus of the Jehovah's Witnesses essentially the same as the Jesus that the Saints believe in?

 

###########

Casting the net even further, some Hindus talk about pursuing Christ Consciousness. Jesus is seen as an incarnation of Krishna, who comes to Earth whenever unrighteousness gets out of control. His purpose is to get us back on the right path, which is basically realizing that all is One. Or something like that 🙂

 

Should Evangelicals consider them Christian? Should Saints?

 

16 hours ago, Navidad said:

I say, Christ will save whom He will, especially at the Last Judgment where I believe there will be a wideness in God's mercy.

A big Amen to that! ❤️

[Leaf474]

16 hours ago, Navidad said:

The Christians in the deepest bush situations in Africa or anywhere else know nothing about Jesus as the highest God. They really know very little about Jesus at all. They may never have heard of Him three days before. But whether LDS, Baptist, Evangelical Free, Methodist, SIM, or AIM International, if they confess Christ as Savior for their sins (with some promptings), they are celebrated as Christians or in the LDS case, as members of the LDS church (after baptism).

Okay... After they gain some knowledge, after some time goes by?

[Navidad]

7 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

Thanks for the nice message. In LDS theology, those gods are on the same level as God, not lesser gods... Am I right about that?

 

That's interesting about those Evangelical scholars. At the same time, I think it's safe to say, as a general truth, that Evangelicals believe in just one God.

 

Your question may be rhetorical, but but many Evangelicals would say We do. (I'm not saying that I do 🙂)

 

The almost knee jerk reasoning is that it's a different Christ. The reasoning, which may or may not hold up, would go something like this:

Is the Jesus who is one of billions (or an infinite number) of Gods/angels/humans essentially the same as the Jesus who is the incarnation of the only true God?

 

Most Evangelicals are going to answer No.

 

I also want to say at this point that a big reason I'm talking about this is just to increase understanding. I'm trying not to sway anyone 😀

 

Well, just a bit of disagreement there... I'm thinking the core question is whether Evangelicals have any valid reasons for saying the Saints aren't Christians.

 

Many Evangelicals will allow the people who have never heard the gospel can be saved, which, I think, indicates a separation in their thinking between salvation and being a Christian.

 

(I'm going to stop here and get some food. But I'll be back with more exciting comments on other parts of your post 😀)

 

 

Bring on the conversation, my friend. It is always good. All these questions get into a host of other questions. What influence does one's belief on eternal security have on this conversation? How is the term God or god being defined? Certainly there were judges in Israel who were mere mortals who were referred to as Elohim. Psalm 82 is merely one example of a reference that may or may not refer to them. For years, the standard Evangelical interpretation of Ps 82:1 was judges in Israel. No question about it. The Old Testament in other places and possibly Christ talks about them.

How do we define Evangelical is another question? Defining "Mormon" is even tricky. Do you know of Evangelicals who believe that no individual Mormon can be a Mormon and be a Christian. Are you familiar with Messianic Judaism? Or in some circles Messianic Christianity? Jews who believe in Christ as the Messiah and Savior? Can someone be Jewish and Christian at the same time? I was a professor and administrator at tn Evangelical college that had a major in the religion department for Messianic Christians. I taught the integration of psychology and theology which was an elective in their curriculum. I got to know lots of them. I can assure you they were absolutely confident they were both Christian and Jewish. Of course many Christians don't think that is possible; ditto for many Jews. That doesn't mean it isn't possible. 🙃

Is the atonement limited to exclude Mormons (of every kind)? We need to get back to the definition of gods and who or which God is or are worthy of worship. I will have to let our LDS friends here answer that, but you might even get some variance in the answer. I would ask until you have full clarification on the term "God" or "god" in LDS theology. As far as I know they believe in the Godhead - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Three separate persons. I believe in the Godhead -Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - three separate persons united as one in purpose. Christ has a glorified body (He is embodied still), the other two don't (my view). Ask them about their view about the Godhead. Most importantly clarify who they believe is worthy of worship and who they pray to.

I am interested in hearing more about your distinction between someone who is saved and someone who is a Christian. Perhaps I could add to the confusion if I add someone who "lives the Christian life?" In that case I would suggest the vast number of members of the LDS church are Christian. I think there is a huge difference between being a Christian and being a Lutheran (used as an example). I have always identified on this forum and elsewhere as a Christian first, an Evangelical second, and a Mennonite way behind in third. Certainly there are others who identify their own faith group as most Christian, or the best example of Christianity, or . . . . . ? I'm like you. Gotta go!

[Navidad]

17 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

Okay... After they gain some knowledge, after some time goes by?

I guess it depends on whether you are an Evangelical who believes in eternal security, or not? I think you might get two different answers based on that. Is a person who commits to Christ as Savior and Lord and then doesn't live the Christian life evidence that the person wasn't "saved" in the first place? Is a person who commits to Christ and Savior and Lord and who can't speak about or who has no clear statement about the mystery of the atonement not a Christian? How about a Christian who never believes in the trinity as stated in a creed? Not a Christian. For example, I don't believe in all the points in the Nicene Creed. Am I not a Christian? Some might suggest that. What if I don't ever understand the virgin birth. Am I not a Christian? Gotta go!