Fourth Abrahamic religion?

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Sara H said:

Please behave responsibly when posting on my threads as you have already assisted in getting one of them closed this week.

Which one is that?

2 hours ago, Sara H said:

For goodness sake, also! Stop convincing our non-LDS friends that we're a cult by insisting that all LDS must refer to the brethren in a specific way or their membership will be questioned if you're really worried about how they perceive us. By doubting my intentions simply because I addressed someone by their first name, you're behaving exactly like a cult member. I will not address you again in this thread, you obviously crave attention. 

 

[Vanguard]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

In my own mind I think (but it is not a requirement to claim the name, I am just saying this is where my mind goes when I hear the label) of a Christian as someone who sees Christ as Savior, as divine, and to be followed and worshipped

I agree with this. I would only add that the "...to be followed and worshipped" looks different for everyone and therefore cannot be readily defined.   

[Vanguard]

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

We would do the same when referring to the leaders of other religions.  So we’d write Pope Francis, not Francis.  Or Bishop Solis, not Oscar.  Again, we do this out of respect

Or maybe we should refer to the Pope as 'Frank' and Bishop Solis as 'BS' so that we don't appear too cultish! ;o

Edited September 14, 2023 by Vanguard

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Many members of the church, when speaking or writing about general authorities or other church officers will use President, Elder, or Sister followed by the persons name.  We do this out of respect for the position they hold.  So we’d say President Nelson, not Russ. And Sister Johnson, not Camille.

We would do the same when referring to the leaders of other religions.  So we’d write Pope Francis, not Francis.  Or Bishop Solis, not Oscar.  Again, we do this out of respect.

I don’t believe that we’re acting in any way cultish by showing respect for religious leaders.  Nor do I believe that someone who doesn’t show this respect will or should have their membership questioned.  However, being respectful does add a sense of dignity to ones writing.

I can't imagine a Catholic saying "I wonder how Bergoglio is doin' today"

 

 

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I can't imagine a Catholic saying "I wonder how Bergoglio is doin' today"

 

 

Perhaps Bergoglio’s mother would. 🙂

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Sara H said:

Please behave responsibly when posting on my threads as you have already assisted in getting one of them closed this week. For goodness sake, also! Stop convincing our non-LDS friends that we're a cult by insisting that all LDS must refer to the brethren in a specific way or their membership will be questioned if you're really worried about how they perceive us. By doubting my intentions simply because I addressed someone by their first name, you're behaving exactly like a cult member. I will not address you again in this thread, you obviously crave attention. 

I don't know an Evangelical that would not call his pastor "Reverend" even if it was "Reverend Bob".

Did Matthew Mark Luke or John even have last names?  

[ksfisher]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Did Matthew Mark Luke or John even have last names?  

The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.

LP Hartley

[Calm]

13 hours ago, Vanguard said:

I agree with this. I would only add that the "...to be followed and worshipped" looks different for everyone and therefore cannot be readily defined.   

Yes, for me there the intent is most important because everyone is at a different place and has different commandments they have been prepared to follow and different commandments they are still preparing in order to even attempt to follow them.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.

LP Hartley

Without a vocabulary, there isn't much to talk about.

MFB  😜

[Navidad]

On 9/13/2023 at 3:09 PM, Leaf474 said:

Well, perhaps different terms would help. Jesus said that he was *the way*, the truth, and the life.

 

So is it fair to say that you are saying that a Christian is an individual (not a group) that is on that *way*?

 

This passage from Acts 9 also came to my mind

"Saul, still breathing threats and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked for letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.'

Good early morning.  The Greek word for "way" in both verses is the same. Its usage signifies "means" or "method" as much as a literal road or path. For example. it is also used in the NT for going somewhere by the "sea" where there is clearly no road or path. I would suggest that the hodos (way) means metaphorically the means, or the method by which someone comes to the Father. That is why I see that word best used in the sense of the judgment. It is at the judgment seat that everyone's final destiny will be settled. In that regard,  when giving an account of our lives to Christ. 

I don't think denominationalism in our human existence will make a difference in our destiny. Will there be those who aren't Christians in this life who will be ushered into the Father? I think so. What will the exact criteria be? I don't know. Will the Mormon be standing in line behind or in front of the Methodist and the Muslim? I think so. The decision for each will be an individual decision not a group decision such as if all Mennonites are ushered in or all Mormons are ushered in to the exclusion of all others. Or only those baptized in a certain way, at a certain age, with a certain manner will be ushered in. Somehow, given all that I read in the New Testament, the key to it must be our faith in the light or revelation we have been granted. Special revelation? General revelation? I don't know.  I think it will be individually-based. That's the only thing that makes sense to me, understanding that "each" of us will give an accounting. Of course, that is simply my understanding of it all at this point in my life - nothing more.

[Navidad]

On 9/13/2023 at 3:24 PM, Calm said:

It doesn’t really matter to me how they are related as I believe Christ has promised me both and both are my destination.

Not important.

Edited September 15, 2023 by Navidad

[Navidad]

On 9/13/2023 at 10:12 PM, mfbukowski said:

I don't know an Evangelical that would not call his pastor "Reverend" even if it was "Reverend Bob".

Did Matthew Mark Luke or John even have last names?  

I think I would agree with you (oh my!) if you would consider changing "Reverend" to "Pastor." I can't think of a time I was deemed "Reverend" by anyone in a congregation I served. I think among Evangelicals, Pastor would be the common term.

Having said that, sometimes here in Mexico I am Reverended by a Catholic friend or moderator when introduced to speak. That always gets my attention because that is a term implying reverence. And as you know, some times I am rather irreverent . . . . irreverend?!  😀

[mfbukowski]

On 9/13/2023 at 4:05 PM, Sara H said:

Please behave responsibly when posting on my threads as you have already assisted in getting one of them closed this week. For goodness sake, also! Stop convincing our non-LDS friends that we're a cult by insisting that all LDS must refer to the brethren in a specific way or their membership will be questioned if you're really worried about how they perceive us. By doubting my intentions simply because I addressed someone by their first name, you're behaving exactly like a cult member. I will not address you again in this thread, you obviously crave attention. 

How can one follow CHRIST and worry about what the neighbors think?

 

[mfbukowski]

On 9/13/2023 at 4:23 PM, Calm said:

Please stop saying I said things I didn’t.

An unfortunate trial for all humans.

Blame it on Babel, seriously.

We are all building our own towers while worrying about what the neighbors will think.

Don't.

I need to learn this as much as anyone.  🥰

[Leaf474]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Good early morning.  The Greek word for "way" in both verses is the same. Its usage signifies "means" or "method" as much as a literal road or path. For example. it is also used in the NT for going somewhere by the "sea" where there is clearly no road or path. I would suggest that the hodos (way) means metaphorically the means, or the method by which someone comes to the Father. That is why I see that word best used in the sense of the judgment. It is at the judgment seat that everyone's final destiny will be settled. In that regard,  when giving an account of our lives to Christ. 

I don't think denominationalism in our human existence will make a difference in our destiny. Will there be those who aren't Christians in this life who will be ushered into the Father? I think so. What will the exact criteria be? I don't know. Will the Mormon be standing in line behind or in front of the Methodist and the Muslim? I think so. The decision for each will be an individual decision not a group decision such as if all Mennonites are ushered in or all Mormons are ushered in to the exclusion of all others. Or only those baptized in a certain way, at a certain age, with a certain manner will be ushered in. Somehow, given all that I read in the New Testament, the key to it must be our faith in the light or revelation we have been granted. Special revelation? General revelation? I don't know.  I think it will be individually-based. That's the only thing that makes sense to me, understanding that "each" of us will give an accounting. Of course, that is simply my understanding of it all at this point in my life - nothing more.

Okay so, is it fair to say that you believe a Christian is someone who is of the Way?

 

Acts 18:26

Apollos began to speak boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside, and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

 

I invite you (or anyone interested) to describe or explain the way of God, how it looks to you (or them).

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

Okay so, is it fair to say that you believe a Christian is someone who is of the Way?

 

Acts 18:26

Apollos began to speak boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside, and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

 

I invite you (or anyone interested) to describe or explain the way of God, how it looks to you (or them).

Ok, I'll take a stab at it, but I have to do so in the very specific context of the passage you used. Apollos was an Alexandrian Jew. He was most likely well trained in the Jewish scriptures and law. He was probably great at rhetoric.  In fact in another passage he is lauded for his knowledge and teaching of the Jewish Scriptures. We know he also had Zenas "the lawyer" with him, which also indicates a guru in the Jewish law. Priscilla and Aquila don't rebuke him, in fact the word "took him aside" is a long complicated word only used three times in the NT. It literally means they "received" him, a word I often use here on the forum. It means they accepted what he was saying, and having embraced him, they then explained a bit more to him about the newish, teachings of Christ, perhaps in  newish Jewish context (I just made that up). Apollos is sometimes credited with having written Hebrews - that is a plausible answer to the mystery of the unknown writer.

The key to the whole passage is in the next verse. One cannot explain verse 26 without verse 27 - "When he wanted to cross over to Achaia, the brothers and sisters wrote to the disciples to welcome him. After he arrived, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed." This verse seems to indicate that he listened well to Priscilla and Aquila because when he got over to Greece "he was a great help to those who by grace (xaritos) had believed. It is pretty clear in the time between Ephesus and Achaia he gained insight into the "way of God" which was taught as a belief based on grace as opposed to law. So, the Jewish law expert came to understand the gospel of the grace of God. Maybe he even sang a verse of "Amazing Grace!" OK! That is going too far!

What is the way of God? - not the way of law (Apollos in Ephesus), but the way of grace (Apollos in Corinth - Achaia). I know my LDS friends balk at the idea of grace being sufficient - a gift - and the like. Maybe they are stuck in Ephesus too and need to be received and sent on to Corinth as was Apollos! 🙃 Of course, we all, primarily me - get stuck in things we believe we have to do, even if we make a good speech about grace.

So methinks the way of God that you refer us to in your verse is the way of grace with a dash of faith (pistis) thrown in just to make us whole!  When Christ in Matt 22: said Your faith has "made you whole" the word whole is sodzo which means to be made safe, to be protected. It is sometimes translated to be "saved," a term our LDS friends don't often use, but our friends will point us to a great talk by a member of the twelve on the fact that it is ok to talk about being born again or saved or such "Evangelical" lingo. I forgot who it was that gave that talk, but I am sure our friends will refresh my memory. So there you have it. That is my way of explaining the way of God - grace plus faith and lets not forget turning around or away from our sin - but that would take another paragraph and I have already written too much!

[Navidad]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

An unfortunate trial for all humans.

Blame it on Babel, seriously.

We are all building our own towers while worrying about what the neighbors will think.

Don't.

I need to learn this as much as anyone.  🥰

Me 2!

[Leaf474]

19 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Ok, I'll take a stab at it, but I have to do so in the very specific context of the passage you used. Apollos was an Alexandrian Jew. He was most likely well trained in the Jewish scriptures and law. He was probably great at rhetoric.  In fact in another passage he is lauded for his knowledge and teaching of the Jewish Scriptures. We know he also had Zenas "the lawyer" with him, which also indicates a guru in the Jewish law. Priscilla and Aquila don't rebuke him, in fact the word "took him aside" is a long complicated word only used three times in the NT. It literally means they "received" him, a word I often use here on the forum.

 

19 minutes ago, Navidad said:

It means they accepted what he was saying, and having embraced him, they then explained a bit more to him about the newish, teachings of Christ, perhaps in  newish Jewish context (I just made that up).

Right, the newish teachings of Christ. And just a hair earlier in Acts 18, "Now a certain Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by race, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus. He was mighty in the Scriptures. 25 This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, although he knew only the baptism of John.

 

I see that Apollos "...spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus." Yet, Priscilla and Aquila believed it was a good idea to teach him the way more accurately. It's true that we can all learn more about about those newish teachings of Christ, but I think this is something more than that. I don't think Priscilla and Aquila were doing this with every person they met who was of the way. Does it look that way to you, too?

 

19 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Apollos is sometimes credited with having written Hebrews - that is a plausible answer to the mystery of the unknown writer.

I think he's the best candidate.

 

19 minutes ago, Navidad said:

The key to the whole passage is in the next verse. One cannot explain verse 26 without verse 27 - "When he wanted to cross over to Achaia, the brothers and sisters wrote to the disciples to welcome him. After he arrived, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed." This verse seems to indicate that he listened well to Priscilla and Aquila because when he got over to Greece "he was a great help to those who by grace (xaritos) had believed. It is pretty clear in the time between Ephesus and Achaia he gained insight into the "way of God" which was taught as a belief based on grace as opposed to law. So, the Jewish law expert came to understand the gospel of the grace of God. Maybe he even sang a verse of "Amazing Grace!" OK! That is going too far!

 

19 minutes ago, Navidad said:

What is the way of God? - not the way of law (Apollos in Ephesus), but the way of grace (Apollos in Corinth - Achaia). I know my LDS friends balk at the idea of grace being sufficient - a gift - and the like. Maybe they are stuck in Ephesus too and need to be received and sent on to Corinth as was Apollos! 🙃

Ahh, the key part of the matter, imo. It is possible to be teaching accurately things about Jesus, and yet still, after being received, need to be "taken aside".

 

What I think some Evangelicals are saying (and this is just by way of explanation) is that the Saints need to be "taken aside" and, failing that, can't really be called "Christians". Again, I think that's what they're saying, it's not what I'm saying.

 

Keeping the thread topic in mind, if the Saints are saying the same thing in the other direction, does it make sense for the Saints to want to be called by the same name as that other much larger group of people who are also saying accurate things about Jesus, but also need to be "taken aside". And people can disagree on that, definitely 🙂

 

19 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Of course, we all, primarily me - get stuck in things we believe we have to do, even if we make a good speech about grace.

So methinks the way of God that you refer us to in your verse is the way of grace with a dash of faith (pistis) thrown in just to make us whole!  When Christ in Matt 22: said Your faith has "made you whole" the word whole is sodzo which means to be made safe, to be protected. It is sometimes translated to be "saved," a term our LDS friends don't often use, but our friends will point us to a great talk by a member of the twelve on the fact that it is ok to talk about being born again or saved or such "Evangelical" lingo. I forgot who it was that gave that talk, but I am sure our friends will refresh my memory. So there you have it. That is my way of explaining the way of God - grace plus faith and lets not forget turning around or away from our sin - but that would take another paragraph and I have already written too much!

I'm glad you wrote what you did ❤️

[Sara H]

On 9/13/2023 at 7:28 PM, ksfisher said:

Many members of the church, when speaking or writing about general authorities or other church officers will use President, Elder, or Sister followed by the persons name.  We do this out of respect for the position they hold.  So we’d say President Nelson, not Russ. And Sister Johnson, not Camille

If I have a correct understanding of our doctrine, we hold that Jesus and his 12 apostles held the same status in the church as Bruce, right? Could you tell me which thread on this board I should read in order to find out where people have taken the respectful practice of referring to Jesus as "Elder Jesus"?

[Sara H]

 

On 9/13/2023 at 7:28 PM, ksfisher said:

Many members of the church, when speaking or writing about general authorities or other church officers will use President, Elder, or Sister followed by the persons name.  We do this out of respect for the position they hold.

But just three hours before you posted this 👆, you referred to Elder Joseph/President Joseph/Prophet Joseph/General Joseph/Mayor Joseph as just plain ol Joseph! So why are you giving me grief when you show the same amount of respect for the elders of the church? Here's the post I'm talking about👇.

 

Edited September 16, 2023 by Sara H

[Sara H]

On 9/13/2023 at 6:27 PM, Calm said:

The use of “Bruce” to refer to Elder McConkie is a usage I have only heard from critics as far as I remember, so I am having the same reaction as you are

 

But despite this, in this 👆 particular post of yours, you make reference to six members of the church by their given names, but you don't call any of them an Elder, President, or Prophet. What makes Bruce more deserving of your regard than any of these other six men?

Edited September 16, 2023 by Sara H

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Sara H said:

 

But despite this, in this 👆 particular post of yours, you make reference to six members of the church by their given names, but you don't call any of them an Elder, President, or Prophet. What makes Bruce more deserving of your regard than any of these other six men?

Just for accuracy where are the six references using solely given names in this post?  I see “Martin”, but I first refer to him as Martin Harris.  The rest are full names or with a title and one abbreviation iirc.

Much more importantly, where did I say anything about this being a “regard” issue or accuse you or the usage of being disrespectful?  This is an official CFR.  Provide it or withdraw your comment  

Or that you or anyone had to refer to someone by their title?  Another CFR.

And while you are doing those, provide the thread I got closed for you in the past week or so** since you appear to be ignoring Rain’s post.  I see two closed threads, one started by Smiley McGee which I did not post on and another started by rjohnson, so unless you are one of them, I am not seeing how this is possible.  CFR here as well.

Back to this post….

Once again, you are thoroughly misrepresenting what I have said.  This is what frustrates me about your responses, you take things out of context and misrepresent them as the standard or typical approach.  If you do this so often when you are actually talking with people and can ask them what they mean for clarification or where they can correct you (and sometimes do at least in my case), how much more likely are you going to get things wrong and misrepresent those who are not posting here?  This is why I urge caution for others with your posts…but it is also why I try to provide links where I can to original content I am referring to when making claims so that readers can check my interpretation and ask others to do the same where appropriate. And the moderators follow the same method, which is one reason I love this board so much.

In the other post where I already responded to you and you apparently ignored or forgot***, I list the usages I have traditionally heard, which includes the full name, btw.  Still it is a valid point that traditional usage does use given names on their own quite a bit for early church leaders, but I hear it rarely, if at all in casual conversation for those from the 1930’s and later (the shift may be closer to the beginning of the century, but too lazy to check…I remember hearing Joseph, Brigham, and Heber quite often, but later prophets are typically “Pres” or full name iirc).  In fact, using Smith and Young are often viewed as disrespectful and I hear members criticizing those who do, though I don’t see that as inherently disrespectful.  Don’t personally see using first names as inherently disrespectful given our current culture either, even if I am old enough to feel odd about it at times. 

In my comment about your reference to “Bruce” I was talking about traditional usage. And I have seen a different usage among members with those leaders from earlier church history than with those who have lived in our lifetime, I suspect for two reasons…one is the usage at the time.  It was common for Joseph Smith to be called “Brother Joseph” or Joseph by those around him and when we read what they say we read “Joseph” and “Brigham” and pick up the same usage. 
 

Also we read and hear many more stories of men and women in our early church and these stories usually use their first names, so I suspect we pick up the habit from there as well.
 

There are much fewer stories of the more recent church leaders and often they are called by their title in these stories, so members tend to follow that style. 
 

In my post I was not saying it was disrespectful or not, but simply referring to traditional usage and the fact is I don’t remember any faithful member using “Bruce” though no doubt some have, but I have seen it quite frequently from critics. It is very common for critics to call church leaders by their first name and not in a chummy sort of way either.  I mention this not to claim you are a critic, but to explain why I see your usage as atypical. 

Since my only point about your posting style is it showed you are not a member who follows traditional usage in this area, it supports what I have said elsewhere and that is you are not always presenting what is a typical or traditional viewpoint quite often in your posts, even when you claim to be and therefore those not familiar with our culture should be careful not to assume your view is the traditional or authoritative one, especially when you don’t provide documentation from official sources.  I do not personally care how people choose to refer to leaders, whoever they are, whether they are being disrespectful or not, unless vulgarity is involved.

My use of abbreviations for BY and JS and others has been called disrespectful by one poster awhile back.  And I don’t have much respect beyond the ordinary he is another human being type of respect for Brigham either.  That style and view is very nontypical in our faith.  But then I have never claimed to be a typical member in my views.

**https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75535-fourth-abrahamic-religion/?do=findComment&comment=1210161323

 

***https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75535-fourth-abrahamic-religion/?do=findComment&comment=1210161327

 

Edited September 16, 2023 by Calm

[Sara H]

52 minutes ago, Calm said:

Just for accuracy where are the six references using solely given names in this post?  I see “Martin”, but I first refer to him as Martin Harris.  The rest are full names or with a title and one abbreviation iirc.

Much more importantly, where did I say anything about this being a “regard” issue or accuse you or the usage of being disrespectful?  This is an official CFR.  Provide it or withdraw your comment

You were critical of my use of "Bruce" rather than Elder McConkie, weren't you? Not mine, but rather your words. So I went back and looked at one of your older posts, in which you mentioned seven brothers who held the priesthood position of "elder," and I saw that you never once referred to any of them by that title while you were writing the piece. All I'm doing is calling out the hypocrisy to anyone who isn't a member of the LDS Church who happens to be reading this board. 

Oh, absolutely! Your CFR can be found at the link that I gave. The only point on which I was incorrect was that you did not refer to the six brethren as Elders; in reality, it was seven Elders that you did not accurately title.

 

Edited September 16, 2023 by Sara H

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, Sara H said:

You were critical of my use of "Bruce" rather than Elder McConkie, weren't you?

No.  I was pointing out to others reading that I was concerned that some might take your claims as typical of LDS as I make clear.  
 

Quote

 I would urge caution in assuming her interpretations are typical ones.  Most are not in my experience. The only reason this matters to me is to avoid confusion among our nonLDS friends and readers here.  I have no issue with different Saints having different interpretations. I do take issue if they insist theirs is typical or traditional when I don’t see much evidence supporting their position and I see other evidence contradicting it, such as her interpretation on how early leaders saw Christianity. 

I even added neither were some of my interpretations in a follow up post (see below), so unless you think I am critical of my own usage, you are once again misrepresenting my comments.

CFR I ever said or implied that I believe it is disrespectful to not use a title and not the below or a variation of the below.  This is the first link in my above post.

Quote

 

Please stop saying I said things I didn’t. I said nothing about doubting your intentions, just that your interpretations are not typical.  Quite a few of my interpretations are not typical either, which is why I try to document any response by using the Church’s official website when someone asks for what LDS believe, not what my belief is.

Nor do I state there is only one way to refer to leadership.  I use a couple of them, first and last name, last name, last name with their title.  Noting that one style is not used is not the same as saying only one style should be used.

The CFR still stand for the alleged thread I got closed.  Your profile shows no locked threads you started in this past year and since you joined May 7, that covers them all and definitely all of them in the week prior to your claim.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/profile/34394-sara-h/content/?type=forums_topic&change_section=1

 

Edited September 16, 2023 by Calm

[Sara H]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

CFR still stand for the alleged thread I got closed.  Your profile shows no locked threads you started in this past year and since you joined May 7, that covers them all and

Once more, you are well aware of the thread I'm referring to in this discussion. The one in where you and rjohnson were unable to stop fighting with each other and kept doing so repeatedly. You should accept responsibility for contributing to the closure of that thread just as much as he should for doing the same thing.