Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Fourth Abrahamic religion?


Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, pogi said:

No.  I don’t agree with their definition of Christian.  They are free to think what they want.   I will agree that we are not traditional Christians though.  We are definitely a subgroup.  We are not the only ones who are not trinitarian or who believe in more than one God.

You don't find it difficult calling the true and everlasting gospel a subgroup? In my opinion Joseph didn't set us up to be seen as a subgroup. 

Link to comment
15 hours ago, webbles said:

The amount of information we know about Her is extremely limited.  I'd love for more revelation on Her but it isn't a new thing to not talk about Her.

Do you all feel that there will be new information revealed in the future? The brethren have the ability to define who heaven's mother is at any time and declare that she is on equal footing with heaven's father. Could you take a second and give some thought to how fascinating, exciting, and audacious it would be to bring the doctrine of a heavenly mother, which has already been established, into the spotlight so that we can introduce her to the rest of the world. To the best of my knowledge, we would be the pioneers in doing it. In my view, this is exactly why the church was founded in the first place; to take risks and to not function as a sub-group. My vision of a fourth Abrahamic religion includes not only the proclamation of the divinity of Heavenly Mother, but also the assertion that we are her spirit offspring and that we have spent a significant amount of time residing alongside Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. In addition to this, and perhaps most crucially, we may make it known that it is acceptable to pray to the heavenly mother whenever one feels the need to seek solace from her. In my opinion, there is no better moment than the present to achieve this. Nearly 60 percent of students enrolled in colleges and universities are female. Women make up around 53 percent of our total church membership. What I am suggesting is not something that has to be feared; rather, what I am suggesting is what a self-assured religion should do, which is to believe in placing our distinctive and all-inclusive teaching front and center, rather than stowing it away in the back of the closet so that we might be perceived as a fragment of Christianity. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Sara H said:

Do you all feel that there will be new information revealed in the future? The brethren have the ability to define who heaven's mother is at any time and declare that she is on equal footing with heaven's father. Could you take a second and give some thought to how fascinating, exciting, and audacious it would be to bring the doctrine of a heavenly mother, which has already been established, into the spotlight so that we can introduce her to the rest of the world. To the best of my knowledge, we would be the pioneers in doing it. In my view, this is exactly why the church was founded in the first place; to take risks and to not function as a sub-group. My vision of a fourth Abrahamic religion includes not only the proclamation of the divinity of Heavenly Mother, but also the assertion that we are her spirit offspring and that we have spent a significant amount of time residing alongside Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. In addition to this, and perhaps most crucially, we may make it known that it is acceptable to pray to the heavenly mother whenever one feels the need to seek solace from her. In my opinion, there is no better moment than the present to achieve this. Nearly 60 percent of students enrolled in colleges and universities are female. Women make up around 53 percent of our total church membership.

I'd love for more information.  But the brethren do not have the ability to define Heavenly Mother.  They would need revelation to do anything more than what we have.  And, for whatever reason, that hasn't been given.  So saying that we should start teaching more about Her is wishful thinking if Heavenly Father or Heavenly Mother won't tell us more about Her.

2 hours ago, Sara H said:

What I am suggesting is not something that has to be feared; rather, what I am suggesting is what a self-assured religion should do, which is to believe in placing our distinctive and all-inclusive teaching front and center, rather than stowing it away in the back of the closet so that we might be perceived as a fragment of Christianity. 

You have a strange complex with Christianity.  We aren't stowing it away to be perceived as a "fragment of Christianity".  You keep making that assertion over and over again with absolutely no proof.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Sara H said:

You don't find it difficult calling the true and everlasting gospel a subgroup? In my opinion Joseph didn't set us up to be seen as a subgroup. 

We're not the sub group, they are.

Other Christian religions descend from Christ's true Church under the Apostles.  Many centuries, doctrinal adjustments, and loss of priesthood later Christ started again with Joseph.

We're the original, the definite article Christianity.  The others are the sub groups.  No need for us to be a new distinct religion.

Link to comment
23 hours ago, webbles said:

You have a strange complex with Christianity

No I dont! Many members of the LDS Church are opposed to being classified as Christians. Many members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that Christianity is beset with its own problems because Christians cannot even agree on a definition of what it means to be a Christian. I know some Catholics who  believe they are Christians, and I also know some Catholics who believe Protestants are the Christians. There are some Protestants who hold the belief that Catholics are Christians, whereas there are other Protestants who hold the belief that Catholics are followers of the devil. I know Jehovah's Witnesses who believe that their faith, along with other religions centered on Christ, is Christian. On the other hand, I know Jehovah's Witnesses who believe that their faith is the only Christian one and that all other religions are of the devil. 

There are a lot of members of the LDS church who are sick of being mistaken for Christians, and I don't blame them. Joseph was aware of the fact that proclaiming oneself to be a Christian comes with a great deal of extra baggage than is strictly necessary.

Here is an article written by a member of the LDS church who shares my sentiments exactly. In today's world, I think a significant number of Latter-day Saints have been led to believe that they are compelled to make a public declaration of their "Christianity."

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/13/opinion/im-a-mormon-not-a-christian.html

Here's part of the article 

 

Screenshot_20230909_085040_Messages.jpg

Edited by Sara H
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Sara H said:

No I dont! Many members of the LDS Church are opposed to being classified as Christians. Many members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that Christianity is beset with its own problems because Christians cannot even agree on a definition of what it means to be a Christian. I know some Catholics who  believe they are Christians, and I also know some Catholics who believe Protestants are the Christians. There are some Protestants who hold the belief that Catholics are Christians, whereas there are other Protestants who hold the belief that Catholics are followers of the devil. I know Jehovah's Witnesses who believe that their faith, along with other religions centered on Christ, is Christian. On the other hand, I know Jehovah's Witnesses who believe that their faith is the only Christian one and that all other religions are of the devil. 

There are a lot of members of the LDS church who are sick of being mistaken for Christians, and I don't blame them. Joseph was aware of the fact that proclaiming oneself to be a Christian comes with a great deal of extra baggage than is strictly necessary.

Do you have any evidence other than anecdotal that "There are a lot of members of the LDS Church who are sick of being mistaken for Christians"? Because, honestly, I have never met anyone who is.

Link to comment

I find myself bemused, confused, completely disagreeing with no one and not completely agreeing with anyone on this thread! First of all this doesn't seem to me to be a religious discussion; it is a human identity - an ethnocentric discussion that is played over and over and over the world today. Who is a Mexican? Who is a Jew (many answers to that one - especially from my Messianic Jewish friends who are regularly excluded from the same). Who is an African-American? Ask your South African Anglo friend! Who is a Mormon? Who is LDS? Why the gap between the 300,000 and 1.4 million numbers? Who is blonde? Do Clairol (or in today's world - Madison Reed blondes count?) Who is an anthropologist? What are the qualifications? Who is a woman? Is a Mennonite a Protestant? How about Oneness Pentecostals? Are they Protestants? Are they Christians? How about from the Mormon point of view - are Christians Christian? (That is what I want the title of my next book to be!).

Were Visigoths Romans? Were Neanderthals human? Are French Masons Masons? How about Mexican Masons? Will Boston Red Sox fans who move to New York ever be New Yorkers? Am I an alumni of UVA if I didn't obtain a degree there, but took lots of classes? Am I a Fundamentalist because I worked at Liberty in its fundamentalist days? Can someone be born Catholic? Is a Crimean Tartar Turkish, Russian, or Ukrainian - or simply a Tartar? Can an Anglo living in Japan ever be a real Japanese?  Can a graduate of a small Evangelical college in Arkansas ever be considered a true academic and intellectual? Can a non-member ever be Christian-enough to pray in a Sacrament service? (You knew I had to throw that one in! 😃). What happens when a Believite marries a Knowite? Are they doomed as a couple? How about when two Needites marry? Are they doomed to a life of codependency? Think of the thousands of stereotypes, labels, etc. in humanity that divide us. Florida or Florida State? USC or UCLA? Iowa or Iowa State? Ed.D or Ph.D? Practitioner versus academic? Public school versus private school? Ford versus Chevy? PRI versus PAN versus PRD? In-group versus out-group? East of I-95 versus west of I-95 in Fort Lauderdale? On and on I could go, as only I can go!

I have not posted this week because I have spent hours and hours with a wonderful LDS family group of about 30 here for week-long family reunion "in the colonies." Wonderful Godly people, able to laugh at themselves, disagree among themselves (even about faith), and worried about their kids, just as are Methodist and Christian Missionary Alliance parents. They came here from Chile, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Texas. Ninety eight percent of you on this forum would instantly recognize their last name. Their mentor and guide for much of the week? Yours truly and sometimes my wife. They found great grandpa's grave; great great aunt Elizabeth's grave. We prayed together. We had a wonderful fellowship, no faith disagreements, or uncomfortable discussions. Oh, and shock above shocks, they even asked me to pray before a meal - knowing I wasn't a member! Wow! Talk about things in common? Oh my, yes. I even learned about the commerce involved in frozen barley from the Cache Valley! Wow! Frozen barley?

I won't speak for them, but I had a great time. Lots of hugs on Friday. Oh, and the elder statesman of the family, about 83 years old, pulled me aside as we parted and told me they are coming back next year; they want me to meet with them again, and he wants me to discuss something he has "always been curious about!" I waited in hushed expectancy . . . . he wants to know all about the "Gunslingers in the Mexican Colonies!" My instant reaction was to laugh. My second reaction was  "Yeh, I can do that!" - The Characters in the Colonies!

You see, there are characters in every group. There are outliers, liminal members, royalty, outcasts (different from outliers), and those on the edge of inside of every group. Oh, and lastly I think that sustaining the Brethren certainly must mean sustaining their many comments as of late about the fact that members of the LDS church are indeed Christians. Now back to where I started . . . . the most important question for me from the LDS perspective --- are Christians Christian?  Especially non-LDS Christians? If so, then why can't they pray in church?  Ha! You knew I would finish up by working that in! 🙃 Best wishes to all.

Edited by Navidad
Link to comment
28 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I find myself bemused, confused, completely disagreeing with no one and not completely agreeing with anyone on this thread! First of all this doesn't seem to me to be a religious discussion; it is a human identity - an ethnocentric discussion that is played over and over and over the world today. Who is a Mexican? Who is a Jew (many answers to that one - especially from my Messianic Jewish friends who are regularly excluded from the same). Who is an African-American? Ask your South African Anglo friend! Who is a Mormon? Who is LDS? Why the gap between the 300,000 and 1.4 million numbers? Who is blonde? Do Clairol (or in today's world - Madison Reed blondes count?) Who is an anthropologist? What are the qualifications? Who is a woman? Is a Mennonite a Protestant? How about Oneness Pentecostals? Are they Protestants? Are they Christians? How about from the Mormon point of view - are Christians Christian? (That is what I want the title of my next book to be!).

Were Visigoths Romans? Were Neanderthals human? Are French Masons Masons? How about Mexican Masons? Will Boston Red Sox fans who move to New York ever be New Yorkers? Am I an alumni of UVA if I didn't obtain a degree there, but took lots of classes? Am I a Fundamentalist because I worked at Liberty in its fundamentalist days? Can someone be born Catholic? Is a Crimean Tartar Turkish, Russian, or Ukrainian - or simply a Tartar? Can an Anglo living in Japan ever be a real Japanese?  Can a graduate of a small Evangelical college in Arkansas ever be considered a true academic and intellectual? Can a non-member ever be Christian-enough to pray in a Sacrament service? (You knew I had to throw that one in! 😃). What happens when a Believite marries a Knowite? Are they doomed as a couple? How about when two Needites marry? Are they doomed to a life of codependency? Think of the thousands of stereotypes, labels, etc. in humanity that divide us. Florida or Florida State? USC or UCLA? Iowa or Iowa State? Ed.D or Ph.D? Practitioner versus academic? Public school versus private school? Ford versus Chevy? PRI versus PAN versus PRD? In-group versus out-group? East of I-95 versus west of I-95 in Fort Lauderdale? On and on I could go, as only I can go!

I have not posted this week because I have spent hours and hours with a wonderful LDS family group of about 30 here for week-long family reunion "in the colonies." Wonderful Godly people, able to laugh at themselves, disagree among themselves (even about faith), and worried about their kids, just as are Methodist and Christian Missionary Alliance parents. They came here from Chile, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Texas. Ninety eight percent of you on this forum would instantly recognize their last name. Their mentor and guide for much of the week? Yours truly and sometimes my wife. They found great grandpa's grave; great great aunt Elizabeth's grave. We prayed together. We had a wonderful fellowship, no faith disagreements, or uncomfortable discussions. Oh, and shock above shocks, they even asked me to pray before a meal - knowing I wasn't a member! Wow! Talk about things in common? Oh my, yes. I even learned about the commerce involved in frozen barley from the Cache Valley! Wow! Frozen barley?

I won't speak for them, but I had a great time. Lots of hugs on Friday. Oh, and the elder statesman of the family, about 83 years old, pulled me aside as we parted and told me they are coming back next year; they want me to meet with them again, and he wants me to discuss something he has "always been curious about!" I waited in hushed expectancy . . . . he wants to know all about the "Gunslingers in the Mexican Colonies!" My instant reaction was to laugh. My second reaction was  "Yeh, I can do that!" - The Characters in the Colonies!

You see, there are characters in every group. There are outliers, liminal members, royalty, outcasts (different from outliers), and those on the edge of inside of every group. Oh, and lastly I think that sustaining the Brethren certainly must mean sustaining their many comments as of late about the fact that members of the LDS church are indeed Christians. Now back to where I started . . . . the most important question for me from the LDS perspective --- are Christians Christian?  Especially non-LDS Christians? If so, then why can't they pray in church?  Ha! You knew I would finish up by working that in! 🙃 Best wishes to all.

There are a lot of LDS people who think we are the real Christians from the 1st century and that Christians are the fake Christians from the 4th century. I think this has been the case for a long time, but in the last 15 years or so, LDS people have become more interested in being seen as Christian Christians. Of course, that's just my opinion, but we do think of ourselves as the original Christians and that our Christianity hasn't been tainted with satanic influence. 

 

 

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Sara H said:

There are a lot of LDS people who think we are the real Christians from the 1st century and that Christians are the fake Christians from the 4th century. I think this has been the case for a long time, but in the last 15 years or so, LDS people have become more interested in being seen as Christian Christians. Of course, that's just my opinion, but we do think of ourselves as the original Christians and that our Christianity hasn't been tainted with satanic influence. 

 

 

I know you said it is your opinion, but where is the bold coming from?  First, what is a "Christian Christians"?  And why do you see use trying to be a "Christian Christian" in only the last 15 years vs the last ~200 years?

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, Sara H said:

There are a lot of LDS people who think we are the real Christians from the 1st century and that Christians are the fake Christians from the 4th century. I think this has been the case for a long time, but in the last 15 years or so, LDS people have become more interested in being seen as Christian Christians. Of course, that's just my opinion, but we do think of ourselves as the original Christians and that our Christianity hasn't been tainted with satanic influence. 

 

 

I won't touch  your last sentence. However, I guess I am curious? Do you sustain the brethren, the leaders of your church? Have any of the current twelve experienced genuine revelation? If so, about which issues? I can't figure out if you are a radical or a rebel member? Or maybe, a radical rebel member with mostly radical rebel members as friends, with one foot in the Mormon Fundamentalist camp? Of course, what I can and cannot figure out isn't really important. It is simply something I like to try and do! I like to figure things out. Best.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Navidad said:

You see, there are characters in every group. There are outliers, liminal members, royalty, outcasts (different from outliers), and those on the edge of inside of every group. Oh, and lastly I think that sustaining the Brethren certainly must mean sustaining their many comments as of late about the fact that members of the LDS church are indeed Christians. Now back to where I started . . . . the most important question for me from the LDS perspective --- are Christians Christian?  Especially non-LDS Christians? If so, then why can't they pray in church?  Ha! You knew I would finish up by working that in! 🙃 Best wishes to all.

About the bolded, I wonder if there are other denominations that also don't allow non-member of their denomination to pray?  I understand in a non-denominational church, they probably don't care (though they might not allow LDS to pray 🙂).  But what about Catholics?  Do they allow non-Catholics to pray in their church?  What about Jehovah Witnesses?  Anabaptists?  Those are ones that I could think of that might be similar but maybe there are others.  Or maybe we are the only denomination that does this?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Sara H said:

Do you have evidence all LDS believe they're Christian?

https://www.deilataylor.com/im-not-christian-im-mormon/

Screenshot_20230909_111039_Chrome.thumb.jpg.cb837adb741462bc6313318cc35fbb09.jpg

This article is replete with stereotypes of Christians.  What is this obsession with the Nicene Creed and Constantine? As a Christian, I have never believed in the creeds established in 325AD. I have never taught, accepted, or been in any way a fan of the Nicene Creed. I could never recite it in either public or private.

I don't require anyone to believe exactly as I do. Where does that come from?

I have many Christian Pentecostal friends here in the borderlands who are not Trinitarians.

I am open to new revelation.

Like her, I do not believe that when we die we sit around in our white angelic gowns, on a patch of angelic cloud conversing with others in their white frocks.

These stereotypes come from somewhere other than a factual understanding of twenty-first century non-LDS Christianity. By virtue of her stereotypes, her implicit definitions of Christianity are, at least in this brief article, incorrect. Its no wonder she doesn't want to be a Christian! 

Edited by Navidad
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, webbles said:

About the bolded, I wonder if there are other denominations that also don't allow non-member of their denomination to pray?  I understand in a non-denominational church, they probably don't care (though they might not allow LDS to pray 🙂).  But what about Catholics?  Do they allow non-Catholics to pray in their church?  What about Jehovah Witnesses?  Anabaptists?  Those are ones that I could think of that might be similar but maybe there are others.  Or maybe we are the only denomination that does this?

Hi my friend. Of course I am not sufficiently informed to answer "if there are other denominations that also don't allow non-members of their denomination to pray?" I can simply state that I don't personally know of any others. I have never been to a Jehovah Witness church, nor am I close enough to any members to answer that one. Anabaptists for sure allow others to pray. I know that for sure since I am Anabaptist and was an Anabaptist licensed minister. Catholics? I would guess that might vary. My experience is that yes, I have prayed in Catholic funerals, marriage and family retreats. In Sunday morning masses here in our village no one but the priest ever prays publicly. Read the scriptures, yes. I have also prayed in Orthodox Sunday gatherings, but not in a formal service -ditto for the priest only. Of course the services I attended were a real mix of English and Arabic. Indeed I have never prayed in Arabic, but I did attend some Islamic gatherings in Africa. I have prayed and preached/taught in Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Evangelical Free, Pentecostal (of all varieties), Anglican, UCC, CM&A, Church of Christ, Christian Church-Disciples of Christ, The Church of God, the Church of God in Christ, Assemblies of God, Nazarene, AME, Mennonite, Beachy-Amish Mennonite, and probably a dozen more church groups that I simply am not recalling.

Whether an LDS would be allowed to pray would most likely be up to the local leader. I know of no Christian group with a "Mormons may not pray tenet" baked into their doctrinal statements. Of course to be consistent, I don't see that in any LDS doctrinal statements as well, just a single statement in a "handbook" that is neither canonical or sacred. In my experience, that single statement has been interpreted differently by different local leaders. And in my case, under the same Stake President (member of our ward) has been interpreted differently by local bishops.

Richard Mouw and Dwight L. Moody both preached and prayed in the Tabernacle in SLC, but my guess is that those were not sacrament services. The fact that the sacrament is celebrated in a sacrament service seems to be disqualifying for some bishops for a non-member to pray. Of course, despite the name, the sacrament is one aspect of it - announcements are also given, songs are sung, lessons are taught, testimonies are given, sustainings and votes of appreciation are sought, special music is performed, and on and on, just like in any other group's Sunday morning service. Take care. 

Link to comment
On 9/7/2023 at 12:48 PM, Sara H said:

I have enough men in my life that feel the need to tell me what I need to do or not do. Do not tell me what is or is not worth my time, I can decide that for myself. Now you're literally badgering me and following from thread to thread because you're angry I won't give you what you want!

You keep trying to make my request about you and your emotions.  It's not.  This is a message board, and we're trying to communicate here.  

Christians have been around a long time.  But how you define "Christian" is important to your concern and question.  I understand why you are afraid to define the word since that would ruin your narrative about the church, but historically people that believe a lot of the same things we believe have been called Christians. 

On 9/8/2023 at 4:22 AM, Sara H said:

I understand why members are OK with being labeled as a sub-group, because it helps us fit in

It's not about fitting in.  When members of the LDS church say we are Christians, it's because we want to be clear that we believe in Jesus Christ and salvation through him, not because we want to be seen the same as every other Protestant Christian group.  We use the word the same as it is used in the Book of Mormon and New Testament.  This is nothing new in the church, it has been this way since Joseph Smith.

Why not just use the Bible or Book of Mormon definition of Christian?  Do you really believe that Protestant Christianity has a claim on the word?   Contrary to popular belief, Christian® is NOT a registered trademark of Evangelical Protestants and it may not be used by other denominations without express written consent.  

Link to comment
22 hours ago, Navidad said:

This article is replete with stereotypes of Christians.  What is this obsession with the Nicene Creed and Constantine? As a Christian, I have never believed in the creeds established in 325AD. I have never taught, accepted, or been in any way a fan of the Nicene Creed. I could never recite it in either public or private.

I don't require anyone to believe exactly as I do. Where does that come from?

I have many Christian Pentecostal friends here in the borderlands who are not Trinitarians.

I am open to new revelation.

Like her, I do not believe that when we die we sit around in our white angelic gowns, on a patch of angelic cloud conversing with others in their white frocks.

These stereotypes come from somewhere other than a factual understanding of twenty-first century non-LDS Christianity. By virtue of her stereotypes, her implicit definitions of Christianity are, at least in this brief article, incorrect. Its no wonder she doesn't want to be a Christian! 

First, I'd like to explain why I don't agree with some of the other people on this thread about what makes a Christian a Christian. If you've read the whole thread, you'll see that worthy priesthood holders in my church say that anyone who believes in Christ is a Christian, and that's all it takes. But they're not really telling you what a Christian is, at least not in the way that our church teaches. We think that from about 400 AD to 1820 AD, the world was in darkness for about 1400 years. That means that most people here have been taught that the devil and his angels were in charge during that time because they messed up the so-called Christian religions. And please understand that there is no theory that says Christianity has turned a new leaf and the different branches of Christianity are closer to God now than they were in 1820. We still baptize both the living and the dead because we still think that everyone else, including Christians, is living in spiritual darkness. 

Well, what I just said might be hard for some people to hear, but it's the truth. If the true and living gospel is true, then the rest of Christianity must have come from the devil himself. Now I've shared many quotes from the first four prophets of our church that show how Christianity is basically a bunch of nonsense and is affected by the devil himself. But here is a modern apostle telling us how we should think about Christianity. He says things like, for 1400 years, people's thoughts were filled with deep darkness. Angels didn't help people at that time. Maybe Incognitus could tell us if that meant Christianity as well, since I think Bruce was talking more about Christianity than any other faith. He says that God wasn't talking to his mortal children during this time. That wonders and signs no longer happened often on earth. He says that there were no dreams or images coming from heaven. He says that at the time, there were no church leaders who could do things that linked earth and heaven. And that the Christian gospel was no longer being preached from pulpits. In short, heresy ruled supreme. It was everywhere, everywhere, and everywhere. That the poor Nazarene's religion was NO WHERE TO BE FOUND. ALL of the groups, cults, and religions had gone wrong. The Devil was happy, and his angels laughed. Satan had done what he set out to do, which was to ruin Christianity.

Now, I'll admit that we don't hear the brethren talk like this in church as much as we used to, and the internet is a big reason why. But for our message to be true, it must be seen that the devil and his angels have corrupted Christianity. So when you read in this thread that good priesthood holders say that a Christian is just someone who believes, they are not telling you the whole truth. Please understand that the word "Christian" is at best a "terrestrial" word, because our teaching says that Christianity can't bring you back to God. 

Here's a link to a talk that explains how we really see Christianity and all the other religions on earth. We do missionary work on earth and in spirit prison because of this. The reason I feel we should be a separate Abrahamic religion is 100% explained in this talk. Bruce is defining Christianity in this talk, how do think Bruce feels about the state of Christianity after watching him give this talk?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Screenshot_20230910_072616_Chrome.jpg

Screenshot_20230910_072647_Chrome.jpg

Edited by Sara H
Link to comment

Thanks for posting this. Let's just say it was a less than spiritually uplifting way to start our my sabbath morning. Perhaps I should rather have begun listening to his comments about Catholics or blacks? I think not. I will say however that I do like his glasses. I am a real fan of vintage eyeglasses.

I am not an equal fan of vintage sectarian doctrine whether by Fundamentalist Baptists, Fundamentalist members of the Church of Christ, or Fundamentalists (used in the doctrinal sense) of the LDS Church. That being said, like many hundreds of thousands, I own a copy of Mormon Doctrine. Early on, some encouraged me to read it to understand the LDS church as it was. No one, in my recollection has encouraged me in the last thirty years to read it to understand the LDS church as it is. In fact, just the opposite is true. Your asking me to listen to Bruce (as you call him) to understand the LDS church as it is today would be similar to me asking you to watch a video (if one exists) of John R Rice or if I gave you a copy of his book, "The Soul Winner's Fire"  in order to understand the Evangelical church as it exists today. It would be also the same as if I recommended Paul Blanshard’s, American Freedom and Catholic Power or another of his books from the 1950s to you to understand non-Catholic/Catholic relations today. That would be a vintage perspective, one neither relevant or representative of how things are today.  Would Bruce McConkie have met with and enjoyed cordial discourse with Pope Francis as did President Nelson?

There are still many Fundamentalists (used in the general sense) stuck in the 1940s and 1950s collective vitriol in which I grew up. Fortunately there are also many more who have rejected that. The comments by the speaker in the video you posted are demonstrative of the fire and brimstone offered by the polarity of religious groups against each other from the 1800s, perhaps reaching a peak in the 1940s and 1950s; only to begin to implode and lessen in the 1960s. Today, I am grateful to say that in my lifetime things have changed for what I consider to be the better in interfaith relations. I hope they (interfaith relations) continue to lose their "anti" characteristics and increase the "commonalist" perspectives that we see today. In the history of humanity, there have always been both unifying and distancing mechanisms.

When doctrine turns to dogma, the distancing mechanisms predominate. Some think this makes the world a better place for each religion to distinguish and define itself as better reflective of the divine to and above all others. I, for one am not a fan of such. I believe God is not a God of confusion, but humans often are. In our individual and group desire to stand apart, we often create a world where we insist we stand above. Have a blessed Sabbath.

I have read books and have heard sermons by LDS folks and had conversations with my LDS friends who have touched me with their Godliness. Have you never once had the same experience from the writings, teachings, or personal fellowship by or with a non-LDS Christian? Have you never been touched by the spiritual sensitivity of one who in a former time you might have declared an "other?" I have and I rejoice in each time. I had a wonderfully Godly LDS bishop. At another time I had a wonderfully Godly Mennonite bishop. At another time I knew and spent time with a wonderfully Godly Anglican. Another time I knew and spent time with a wonderfully Godly Catholic priest. Have any of these encounters damaged my preconceptions about them? Yes. Thank goodness! Have any of these encounters damaged my own faith as I know and live it? NO. Those encounters have enriched my faith in a God who loves and lives through each of His children, whenever, wherever, and in whatever church (or in no church) they are found. Have a blessed Sabbath.

Edited by Navidad
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Sara H said:

Here's a link to a talk that explains how we really see Christianity and all the other religions on earth.

Nope.

The LDS leadership never approved of "Mormon Doctrine" by bro McConkie.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...