Which Revelations Provide My LDS Friends with Certainty that Baptisms are the Means by which Sins are Forgiven?

[InCognitus]

On 11/2/2023 at 12:28 PM, Navidad said:

This morning I woke up and decided to simply ask each of you (collectively) on what specific revelations do you base your beliefs, especially those that involve LDS exclusivity or onliness (my terms)? I agree with you about the fact that such authority belongs to Christ and I would add, is mediated to us via the Holy Spirit. Therefore I can't understand why Christ, the Holy Spirit, and God the Father don't have the agency to do as they will, when it seems pretty clear in the Old Testament that they do? I can't get my head around the "God is not a God of confusion" evidence. That is too simple for me. God heals some and chooses not to heal others. That might seem confusing to us, but it isn't. He has His own reasons that are way over our pay grade.

I've been rereading your posts in this thread and I've been trying to understand one of the things you say above.  You say you "can't understand why Christ, the Holy Spirit, and God the Father don't have the agency to do as they will, when it seems pretty clear in the Old Testament that they do".  I read that to be saying that you think the exclusivity of the LDS view prevents the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit from having the agency to do as they will today.  Is that correct?  (This makes absolutely no sense to me).  If so, then what specifically are you referring to in the events of the Old Testament that you think are different than how the LDS portray the way God works today?  Or can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

Also, are you distinguishing between the ordinances (which is what your thread title implies when you ask about baptism) and the general workings of God among men?  The LDS view does not claim that God doesn't (or can't?) do healings or work miracles among those outside of the LDS church, nor does it claim that those outside of the church cannot be led by the Spirit.  But it does claim to have the priesthood authority today, to perform the ordinances (like baptisms).  And we also acknowledge that others in Biblical and Book of Mormon history have held the authority to perform ordinances (like baptism).

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

(You readily quote Kant and Wittgenstein and Rorty. I dare you to take on Nietzsche with these questions  )

How dare you confront my brilliance? 😱😜😉

Easy one! 

Eternal Recurrence!

Live in such a way that you wish that the very life you have lived would be repeated endlessly, re-lived again and again into the future!!

If you weren't a good guy.... that would not be a peaceful retreat batteling all them folks you riled up for eternity!

All these guys are the same peas in a pod!

 

🙃

Edited November 6 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

8 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I've been rereading your posts in this thread and I've been trying to understand one of the things you say above.  You say you "can't understand why Christ, the Holy Spirit, and God the Father don't have the agency to do as they will, when it seems pretty clear in the Old Testament that they do".  I read that to be saying that you think the exclusivity of the LDS view prevents the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit from having the agency to do as they will today.  Is that correct?  (This makes absolutely no sense to me).  If so, then what specifically are you referring to in the events of the Old Testament that you think are different than how the LDS portray the way God works today?  Or can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

Also, are you distinguishing between the ordinances (which is what your thread title implies when you ask about baptism) and the general workings of God among men?  The LDS view does not claim that God doesn't (or can't?) do healings or work miracles among those outside of the LDS church, nor does it claim that those outside of the church cannot be led by the Spirit.  But it does claim to have the priesthood authority today, to perform the ordinances (like baptisms).  And we also acknowledge that others in Biblical and Book of Mormon history have held the authority to perform ordinances (like baptism).

Hi my friend. I have to run, but I will try and answer. My comment about the Godhead's agency was specifically about Their ability and agency to do as they will, including in the case of granting the authority to lead and perform ordinances, including baptism to whomever They will of whichever Christian group They will whenever They will. After the years of my familiarity with the LDS and direct and personal observation of them, I am still trying to process the concept that God has uniquely and exclusively given them any unique spiritual attribute, especially if that, as it seems results in the Godhead binding or limiting itself by that action. Of course, I am sifting my questions through the filter of my own experience, in which my ordination and receiving of the ministerial priesthood to perform ordinances was a deeply meaning, spiritual, and personal experience, which for some reason you all choose to deny me. I am still trying to figure out that reason other than, "that is what our church teaches" and we believe it.

More important, the purpose of my thread was to better get my head around what or which revelational claims my LDS friends rely on to shape and form that kind of doctrine. This will probably upset some of my friends here, but I still don't understand the genesis of the concept, because no one has shared a specific revelation with me that in its plain readable text says "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has this and no one else does since 1830." Even in the NT, Christ, in his earthly ministry in no way limits the granting of His authority to twelve men. So, I am trying to understand. I am not as some suggest trying not to understand. If that was my goal, I wouldn't take the time to ask as many questions as I have. I want to understand, but some of the replies sound like those of my mom when I was a kid? "Why? Because I said so!" At the same time I was raised to keep seeking and asking questions. Thanks for caring enough to give me the opportunity to clarify, even if my clarification is not adequate. Best!

[Leaf474]

51 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hi my friend. I have to run, but I will try and answer. My comment about the Godhead's agency was specifically about Their ability and agency to do as they will, including in the case of granting the authority to lead and perform ordinances, including baptism to whomever They will of whichever Christian group They will whenever They will. After the years of my familiarity with the LDS and direct and personal observation of them, I am still trying to process the concept that God has uniquely and exclusively given them any unique spiritual attribute, especially if that, as it seems results in the Godhead binding or limiting itself by that action. Of course, I am sifting my questions through the filter of my own experience, in which my ordination and receiving of the ministerial priesthood to perform ordinances was a deeply meaning, spiritual, and personal experience, which for some reason you all choose to deny me. I am still trying to figure out that reason other than, "that is what our church teaches" and we believe it.

More important, the purpose of my thread was to better get my head around what or which revelational claims my LDS friends rely on to shape and form that kind of doctrine. This will probably upset some of my friends here, but I still don't understand the genesis of the concept, because no one has shared a specific revelation with me that in its plain readable text says "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has this and no one else does since 1830." Even in the NT, Christ, in his earthly ministry in no way limits the granting of His authority to twelve men. So, I am trying to understand. I am not as some suggest trying not to understand. If that was my goal, I wouldn't take the time to ask as many questions as I have. I want to understand, but some of the replies sound like those of my mom when I was a kid? "Why? Because I said so!" At the same time I was raised to keep seeking and asking questions. Thanks for caring enough to give me the opportunity to clarify, even if my clarification is not adequate. Best!

FWIW - I haven't read the entire thread, and of course I'm not LDS - possibly it's just an overwhelming and pervasive teaching of the LDS Church?

 

Maybe it's similar to how the Catholic Church won't let you officiate at Communion? Is there a particular decision by an ecumenical council? I can't think of one, but it's a pervasive teaching in Catholicism that only they (and the Orthodox) can properly consecrate the host.

 

If you don't believe in many of the core doctrines of the LDS Church, it seems reasonable to me that they wouldn't believe in the ordinances you administer.

 

I'm sure you're familiar with Acts 8

"Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, 15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit; 16 for as yet he had fallen on none of them."

 

Could the spirit have fallen on them without Peter and John? Sure! But God chose to use a particular channel. (And I say that as someone who doesn't believe the LDS church is the right channel 🙂)

[webbles]

58 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Even in the NT, Christ, in his earthly ministry in no way limits the granting of His authority to twelve men.

Is there anyone in the NT that says they have His authority and either didn't get it directly from Him while He was alive (the twelve apostles, the seventy, etc) or from someone who received it from Him?  Because we also don't believe He limited His authority to twelve men.  But we believe that someone can't receive His authority except through proper channels.  A prime example is Paul.  He claims he saw the resurrected Christ.  But He didn't gain any authority by that vision.  He still had to go receive it through the proper channels.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I am still trying to figure out that reason other than, "that is what our church teaches" and we believe it.

We believe that our leaders have the authority to speak scripture that have as much authority as the rest of the scriptures.  So, if our prophets and apostles teach it, then why is that not enough?

[teddyaware]

On 11/2/2023 at 2:28 PM, Navidad said:

This morning I woke up and decided to simply ask each of you (collectively) on what specific revelations do you base your beliefs, especially those that involve LDS exclusivity or onliness (my terms)? I agree with you about the fact that such authority belongs to Christ and I would add, is mediated to us via the Holy Spirit. Therefore I can't understand why Christ, the Holy Spirit, and God the Father don't have the agency to do as they will, when it seems pretty clear in the Old Testament that they do? I can't get my head around the "God is not a God of confusion" evidence. That is too simple for me. God heals some and chooses not to heal others. That might seem confusing to us, but it isn't. He has His own reasons that are way over our pay grade.

 

Why do you imagine that in LDS theology God doesn’t have agency? Just because the Father, Son and Holy Ghost always do what’s good and right, and never do what’s wrong, does not mean that they don’t have free will. The actual fact of the matter is that the three members of the Godhead are the prime exemplars intelligent beings who exercise free will in righteousness. The great glory of it all is that the three members of the Godhead are good because they freely choose to be good, which is why we love, praise and honor them with such deep devotion. Why would anyone be motivated to love, praise and honor a being for invariably doing what’s right when that being is basically a preprogrammed automaton who has no choice but to always execute the letter of the law, and do so without the inspiring and enlivening passion that comes from inwardly wanting to do what’s right. In LDS theology, the reason why God is worthy worship, honor and holy emulation is because he freely chooses to love us and live in righteousness for our blessing.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I still don't understand the genesis of the concept, because no one has shared a specific revelation with me that in its plain readable text says "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has this and no one else does since 1830."

Someone already quoted D&C 132:

Quote

7 And verily I say unto you, that the ^aconditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, ^boaths, ^cvows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and ^dsealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is ^eanointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by ^frevelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this ^gpower (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this ^hpower in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the ⁱkeys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

Isn't that a "plain readable text" that says only Joseph Smith had the power to enter and seal covenants (such as baptism) and that only one on the earth has it (today would be President Nelson)?

[mfbukowski]

On 11/2/2023 at 11:28 AM, Navidad said:

Thanks so much. Based on your reply, the next logical questions someone like me must ask are the following: If there were "many baptisms" prior to the founding of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that were valid, pleasing, and acceptable to the Godhead for forgiveness of sins, have there been "many or any" valid, pleasing and acceptable non-LDS church baptisms performed since the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was founded, especially given that the authority to do so belongs to Christ, not to the Church? Might not Christ grant that authority to whomever He chooses? If not, why not? If we do, do not Christ, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit have and exercise free-will (agency)?

If your answer is "no," then I am back to my original question. You indicate "we believe" that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the church in this dispensation that has the authority to perform such ordinances . . ." Upon what authority, revelations, scriptures, etc. do you base that belief? I guess that is what I am trying to get at. For my last six years of intense engagement with my LDS friends, I have been repeatedly told "We believe" this or that. Then someone else would tell me "I don't believe that" and these people were leaders of one sort or another in the local or general church.

For example, from the time I was a little child, I believed many things because that is what I was taught by my parents, pastors, Sunday School teachers, etc. I believed that we were in the end times. I believed that men should wear beards. I believed that women should not wear pants or makeup. I believed that there were Mennonites and others (we called them the English). The former were pleasing to God and the latter were the "world," to be avoided at all costs.  I believed I should marry someone of my faith. I could on and on. However, I believed these things because I was taught these things. I believed them up through about 14 years of age, when the questions then came. By that time I had given one hundred testimonies of the truth of what I believe, and one or two full sermons. By the time I was 22 or so I rejected all of those things I have described to you. I still reject them . . . except I do like my goatee.

This morning I woke up and decided to simply ask each of you (collectively) on what specific revelations do you base your beliefs, especially those that involve LDS exclusivity or onliness (my terms)? I agree with you about the fact that such authority belongs to Christ and I would add, is mediated to us via the Holy Spirit. Therefore I can't understand why Christ, the Holy Spirit, and God the Father don't have the agency to do as they will, when it seems pretty clear in the Old Testament that they do? I can't get my head around the "God is not a God of confusion" evidence. That is too simple for me. God heals some and chooses not to heal others. That might seem confusing to us, but it isn't. He has His own reasons that are way over our pay grade.

So, I decided to ask. . . not to challenge, but to ascertain if there is a difference between how you aggregate and affirm your beliefs and how I aggregated and affirmed mine. I am trying to figure out if I am missing something? Today at 74, I am much less certain, much less strident, and much happier with my beliefs than I was at 15 when I believed what I believed because I was taught by every authority figure in my life to believe it. I became a parrot (I know because we had an African Grey for thirty years). Thanks for your reply and patience.

Please restate your question in a clear sentence.

You are questioning God's agency?

It is called "self Determination " the highest kind of agency. Suppose you want to lose weight.  It will make you healthier.

You decide to LIMIT YOUR AGENCY in eating chocolate cake and make a SACRIFICE for the sake of a better outcome, making a rule for yourself that you will no longer eat chocolate cake.

God limits himself to using natural means and laws, so that his ACTIVITY in dealing with mankind is limited to using natural law.

How is that limiting his agency, when he VOLUNTARILY does something that his children will be able to understand, in a world he has himself designed for that purpose??

Yes all beliefs ARE BELIEFS, and ultimately cannot be proven, even in science as it changes paradigms until what is BELIEVED to yet another unprovable BELIEF. That is their nature. 

We grow up children and then learn to think as an adult.  It's supposed to be that way. 

We naturally believe what we believe but eventually grow up.

I finally found a church that was based on MY personal revelation.

If it doesn't work for you, fine.

If it appears "exclusive", AND your beliefs say that's bad, then don't join.

It's really quite simple.

I liked it.

I recall a high school teacher asking me, about a rule I didn't like, " WHAT DO YOU WANT- SPECIAL TREATMENT??"

I said: "Sure! Doesn't everyone?"

He got so red, I thought he was going to have a heart attack!

 

[mfbukowski]

On 11/2/2023 at 7:09 AM, Navidad said:

1. Which Revelations Provide My LDS Friends with Certainty that Baptisms are the Means by which Sins are Forgiven? 2. Are there Revelations that indicate that Baptisms are the only means by which Sins are Forgiven?  3. Are there Revelations that Indicate that LDS Baptisms are the only Baptisms by which Sins are Forgiven? Thanks.

I have read many books on "certainty"

How can you be certain without a BELIEF?

Ultimately it seems to be treated as a psychological state, wherein one absolutely BELIEVES a BELIEF ! 

So it is a belief that gets "Deified" mentally above all other alleged explanations for some phenomenon, as kind of THE ultimate "truth" on a given topic.

Until one finds another.

It's subject to all the usual problems in 1- As a human BELIEF, being a human creation, subject to human perception without 2- any way to get "outside" human perception to verify anything and 3- all the problems in allegedly making squiggles on a page "correspond" to the richness of experience.

Where is the FIRE of the experience of "r-e-d" in those three little letters/squiggles on a page? Words do not convey reality and cannot.

How does one capture the shiny red fire of a new sportscar to a blind person?

Words and beliefs all share that problem, and then one canonizes and freezes that fire into "certainty"? 

As is with EVERYTHING a human allegedly knows, it must be a human creation.

Of that I am CERTAIN. 

 

 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

My comment about the Godhead's agency was specifically about Their ability and agency to do as they will, including in the case of granting the authority to lead and perform ordinances, including baptism to whomever They will of whichever Christian group They will whenever They will.

It seems like you see any limit on God’s options of choice to be limiting his agency (and the agency of the Son and the Spirit).  Is this an accurate interpretation or do you see some ways that God is limited, whether by circumstance or by his own choices?

[Navidad]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

You are questioning God's agency?

You asked a question, let me answer. No, I am not questioning or limiting God's agency in any way. I believe He can do as He wishes at any time, on any issue, in any way. This includes granting the authority to baptize, marry, confirm, or any other ordinance known to Christianity to anyone, at any time, in any place. Authority is given by the Holy Spirit to mature and Spirit-led Christians to protect the recipient from abuse by someone who might seek to misuse the ordinance in some way.  Take care.  

[Navidad]

Just now, Calm said:

It seems like you see any limit on God’s options of choice to be limiting his agency (and the agency of the Son and the Spirit).  Is this an accurate interpretation or do you see some ways that God is limited, whether by circumstance or by his own choices?

I see no limit on God's agency, including that of any member of the Godhead. I don't see God ever limited by circumstance or by a choice He has previously made. Does God have the agency to change his mind?  Absolutely! I don't see any human who ever lived, other than Christ who can declare their ability, power, or authority to limit what God does, says, or act in new ways as never before. No human leader of any church has the power, authority, or right to bind God's hands (speaking metaphorically) or limit his sovereignty over all of His creation, however broad, expansive, and wonderful it may be. I can't think of any limits on God's options of choice to do as He wills, especially not by any human agent. I believe the Godhead is composed of three persons. Therefore I am unsure if they ever have differing "minds" about things. But I do believe when all is said and done, they work in one accord. Thanks. 

[Navidad]

I appreciate all the comments made in response to this thread and my posts therein. I regret I don't have more time to answer each one individually and with the care it deserves. I simply don't right now. Let me make some observations, then I have to run (metaphorically speaking).  The final corrections in my thesis are weighing heavily on me.

1. I think that many profound truths can exist about the same subject at the same time. Whether that subject is God, baptism, or the Philadelphia Eagles, the same holds true.
2. Therefore it seems to me that varying definitions or viewpoints about the same subject can be pleasing to Him, and yes, even equally valid in His eyes.
3. What I don't understand, perhaps because of 1 and 2, is how my LDS friends can come to the conclusion that their truths are the only true truths or the only valid truths, for example about ordinances?  Especially when within the LDS community there are differing views and perspectives on the same subjects. Someone quoted D&C 132 as proof of something about ordinances. Yet, I know that D&C 132 is probably the most widely-debated and least understood sections of all of LDS scripture. Is it not?
4. I understand that my faith's understanding of the purpose and intent for baptism is not the same as that of the LDS church. I do not understand why to God- the King of the Universe, they cannot both be equally pleasing and valid at the same time? For me, the LDS baptism and LDS ordination is valid and as far as I know, pleasing to God within the LDS church. For me, my baptism and ordination were and are valid as to their meaning in my church, and equally as pleasing to God as that of the LDS version of the same. Why does it have to be one or the other? Why did Apostle Kimball write that my baptisms are blasphemy to God? Did that come from God? I really don't think so - it came from his own pen or typewriter. Why does so and so in the non-LDS Christian community say that the LDS are not Christians? Does that come from God? I really don't think so - it came from his own pen or typewriter. I don't think we are all that different.
5. I see wonderful Godly people in the LDS church. I would not question their relationship to the Spirit. Yet, they refuse me or my wife the same thing. Our lot, in the LDS mindset is to suffer the temporary attainment and then loss of the Spirit on a frequent basis. The gifts of the Spirit for us? Maybe. The Gift of the Spirit for us? Nope! But its nothing personal! Phooey!
6. You see, ours is not a doctrinal sterile disagreement. It is a lived, breathed, and painful reality. Mark suggests I shouldn't be personal. How can I help but be personal when it is personal? My wife and I went to the grocery store this morning. She stayed in the car while I went in. Why? Because of the hurt that she would experience seeing someone  who she loves and who has expressed love for her, turn away from her as if in fear that the bishop might be mad if he saw them interacting. We took her famous chocolate cupcakes to the academy Halloween fund-raising festival. She wanted to go early in the afternoon so no one else would be there when we delivered them. I am trying to understand your doctrine in order to understand why what happened to us happened to us. Agreement isn't in my agenda. I don't need to agree with this or that. Good night, I was a large public school district superintendent! I learned many years ago to get past disagreements to make things work. I do enjoy trying to understand however. 

I gotta go. This is already too long and probably too personal. One last thing. Neither my wife or I are anti-Mormon. Neither of us refuse to understand. I just don't want to live the rest of my short number of years as an ex-non-Mormon who doesn't understand why we were rejected when it appears to me that 95% of all our ward friends enjoyed our attendance, participation, and yes ministry. There is no place for folks like us in the LDS church. Why that is true is what I am trying to understand. I pray about it and the Spirit doesn't answer my prayers. Maybe, just maybe He doesn't understand it either. Maybe I shouldn't have said that! Take care and best wishes to all.

 

 

Edited November 6 by Navidad

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I see no limit on God's agency, including that of any member of the Godhead.

So God can do evil in your view?

If he does not do evil, what limits him in this way?

If he does do evil, how can he be God?

(serious question, trying to understand your reasoning)

Edited November 6 by Calm

[Leaf474]

58 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I appreciate all the comments made in response to this thread and my posts therein. I regret I don't have more time to answer each one individually and with the care it deserves. I simply don't right now. Let me make some observations, then I have to run (metaphorically speaking).  The final corrections in my thesis are weighing heavily on me.

1. I think that many profound truths can exist about the same subject at the same time. Whether that subject is God, baptism, or the Philadelphia Eagles, the same holds true.
2. Therefore it seems to me that varying definitions or viewpoints about the same subject can be pleasing to Him, and yes, even equally valid in His eyes.
3. What I don't understand, perhaps because of 1 and 2, is how my LDS friends can come to the conclusion that their truths are the only true truths or the only valid truths, for example about ordinances?  Especially when within the LDS community there are differing views and perspectives on the same subjects. Someone quoted D&C 132 as proof of something about ordinances. Yet, I know that D&C 132 is probably the most widely-debated and least understood sections of all of LDS scripture. Is it not?
4. I understand that my faith's understanding of the purpose and intent for baptism is not the same as that of the LDS church. I do not understand why to God- the King of the Universe, they cannot both be equally pleasing and valid at the same time? For me, the LDS baptism and LDS ordination is valid and as far as I know, pleasing to God within the LDS church. For me, my baptism and ordination were and are valid as to their meaning in my church, and equally as pleasing to God as that of the LDS version of the same. Why does it have to be one or the other? Why did Apostle Kimball write that my baptisms are blasphemy to God? Did that come from God? I really don't think so - it came from his own pen or typewriter. Why does so and so in the non-LDS Christian community say that the LDS are not Christians? Does that come from God? I really don't think so - it came from his own pen or typewriter. I don't think we are all that different.
5. I see wonderful Godly people in the LDS church. I would not question their relationship to the Spirit. Yet, they refuse me or my wife the same thing. Our lot, in the LDS mindset is to suffer the temporary attainment and then loss of the Spirit on a frequent basis. The gifts of the Spirit for us? Maybe. The Gift of the Spirit for us? Nope! But its nothing personal! Phooey!
6. You see, ours is not a doctrinal sterile disagreement. It is a lived, breathed, and painful reality. Mark suggests I shouldn't be personal. How can I help but be personal when it is personal? My wife and I went to the grocery store this morning. She stayed in the car while I went in. Why? Because of the hurt that she would experience seeing someone  who she loves and who has expressed love for her, turn away from her as if in fear that the bishop might be mad if he saw them interacting. We took her famous chocolate cupcakes to the academy Halloween fund-raising festival. She wanted to go early in the afternoon so no one else would be there when we delivered them. I am trying to understand your doctrine in order to understand why what happened to us happened to us. Agreement isn't in my agenda. I don't need to agree with this or that. Good night, I was a large public school district superintendent! I learned many years ago to get past disagreements to make things work. I do enjoy trying to understand however. 

I gotta go. This is already too long and probably too personal. One last thing. Neither my wife or I are anti-Mormon. Neither of us refuse to understand. I just don't want to live the rest of my short number of years as an ex-non-Mormon who doesn't understand why we were rejected when it appears to me that 95% of all our ward friends enjoyed our attendance, participation, and yes ministry. There is no place for folks like us in the LDS church. Why that is true is what I am trying to understand. I pray about it and the Spirit doesn't answer my prayers. Maybe, just maybe He doesn't understand it either. Maybe I shouldn't have said that! Take care and best wishes to all.

First off, I hear your pain ❤️ May the Lord Jesus be with you and your wife, and give you peace.

_______

Maybe a sociological approach would help:

The LDS church is a tightly-knit group. As such, it has to have clear lines or boundaries, or it would cease to be a group. If there's nothing special about the temple, why go through the steps to go there? Why not just spend a Saturday morning climbing a beautiful mountain and meet God up there?

 

Of course there are going to be people who disagree with where the lines are. But there has to be some amount of "line maintenance" in order for there to be a reason for people to follow the group's rules.

 

I have more great (?) metaphors, please let me know if you want to talk more on the subject - at your own pace, of course.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I appreciate all the comments made in response to this thread and my posts therein. I regret I don't have more time to answer each one individually and with the care it deserves. I simply don't right now. Let me make some observations, then I have to run (metaphorically speaking).  The final corrections in my thesis are weighing heavily on me.

1. I think that many profound truths can exist about the same subject at the same time. Whether that subject is God, baptism, or the Philadelphia Eagles, the same holds true.
2. Therefore it seems to me that varying definitions or viewpoints about the same subject can be pleasing to Him, and yes, even equally valid in His eyes.
3. What I don't understand, perhaps because of 1 and 2, is how my LDS friends can come to the conclusion that their truths are the only true truths or the only valid truths, for example about ordinances?  Especially when within the LDS community there are differing views and perspectives on the same subjects. Someone quoted D&C 132 as proof of something about ordinances. Yet, I know that D&C 132 is probably the most widely-debated and least understood sections of all of LDS scripture. Is it not?
4. I understand that my faith's understanding of the purpose and intent for baptism is not the same as that of the LDS church. I do not understand why to God- the King of the Universe, they cannot both be equally pleasing and valid at the same time? For me, the LDS baptism and LDS ordination is valid and as far as I know, pleasing to God within the LDS church. For me, my baptism and ordination were and are valid as to their meaning in my church, and equally as pleasing to God as that of the LDS version of the same. Why does it have to be one or the other? Why did Apostle Kimball write that my baptisms are blasphemy to God? Did that come from God? I really don't think so - it came from his own pen or typewriter. Why does so and so in the non-LDS Christian community say that the LDS are not Christians? Does that come from God? I really don't think so - it came from his own pen or typewriter. I don't think we are all that different.
5. I see wonderful Godly people in the LDS church. I would not question their relationship to the Spirit. Yet, they refuse me or my wife the same thing. Our lot, in the LDS mindset is to suffer the temporary attainment and then loss of the Spirit on a frequent basis. The gifts of the Spirit for us? Maybe. The Gift of the Spirit for us? Nope! But its nothing personal! Phooey!
6. You see, ours is not a doctrinal sterile disagreement. It is a lived, breathed, and painful reality. Mark suggests I shouldn't be personal. How can I help but be personal when it is personal? My wife and I went to the grocery store this morning. She stayed in the car while I went in. Why? Because of the hurt that she would experience seeing someone  who she loves and who has expressed love for her, turn away from her as if in fear that the bishop might be mad if he saw them interacting. We took her famous chocolate cupcakes to the academy Halloween fund-raising festival. She wanted to go early in the afternoon so no one else would be there when we delivered them. I am trying to understand your doctrine in order to understand why what happened to us happened to us. Agreement isn't in my agenda. I don't need to agree with this or that. Good night, I was a large public school district superintendent! I learned many years ago to get past disagreements to make things work. I do enjoy trying to understand however. 

I gotta go. This is already too long and probably too personal. One last thing. Neither my wife or I are anti-Mormon. Neither of us refuse to understand. I just don't want to live the rest of my short number of years as an ex-non-Mormon who doesn't understand why we were rejected when it appears to me that 95% of all our ward friends enjoyed our attendance, participation, and yes ministry. There is no place for folks like us in the LDS church. Why that is true is what I am trying to understand. I pray about it and the Spirit doesn't answer my prayers. Maybe, just maybe He doesn't understand it either. Maybe I shouldn't have said that! Take care and best wishes to all.

 

 

These are your BELIEFS.

We have different BELIEFS.

We are both CERTAIN that we are right.

Certainty is a psychological state, and says nothing about the world we cannot see or "as it truly is" whatever that is supposed to mean, considering it is impossible for humans to know that.

You have your certainty and we have ours, and never the twain shall meet.  Unless they do.

All we have are paradigms- working models of our own beliefs.

Arguing the same points over and again is a useless enterprise.

Now 5 or six years since you brought this up, and 5 or 6 years with NO results.

This does not seem "rational" for either side, to me.

Peace, out

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

So God can do evil in your view?

If he does not do evil, what limits him in this way?

If he does do evil, how can he be God?

(serious question, trying to understand your reasoning)

Yes, he has clearly stated that God's agency is limited, and also unlimited 

BOTH

 

[mfbukowski]

On 11/2/2023 at 3:37 PM, bluebell said:

I find it hard to believe that you've never gotten answer to this question over so many years of asking.  What I find very believable is that you've gotten answers, don't agree with them and so won't accept them.

Agree most heartily!

[webbles]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

3. What I don't understand, perhaps because of 1 and 2, is how my LDS friends can come to the conclusion that their truths are the only true truths or the only valid truths, for example about ordinances?  Especially when within the LDS community there are differing views and perspectives on the same subjects. Someone quoted D&C 132 as proof of something about ordinances. Yet, I know that D&C 132 is probably the most widely-debated and least understood sections of all of LDS scripture. Is it not?

D&C 132:34+ is widely debated.  Some/many people don't like those verses.  There's even some that have speculated that it was added on later by Brigham Young and not part of the original revelation.  But the earlier versus aren't (at least anymore than other scriptures).  I think there are very few that have issues with the quoted verse (verse 7).

[Amulek]

9 hours ago, webbles said:

Someone already quoted D&C 132:

Quote

7 And verily I say unto you, that the ^aconditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, ^boaths, ^cvows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and ^dsealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is ^eanointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by ^frevelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this ^gpower (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this ^hpower in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the ⁱkeys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

Isn't that a "plain readable text" that says only Joseph Smith had the power to enter and seal covenants (such as baptism) and that only one on the earth has it (today would be President Nelson)?

That's pretty much what I thought when I posted it. Only, rather than accepting this as being a direct answer to the question initially posed, it gets waived away as merely "(s)omeone quot[ing] D&C 132 as proof of something about ordinances."

I also referenced Section 22, which was given just ten days after the church was formally established. Joseph went to the Lord to see if the baptisms performed by other churches would be acceptable and it was revealed that they were not.

The notion that the church's teachings on this matter are either not supported by revelation or are some kind of late development in church history is almost laughably absurd.

 

[Navidad]

Ok my friends. I won't remain on a forum that mocks me and maligns my intent, deeming me as laughingly absurd. My journey into the world of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is now officially ended on both a local level and on this forum. You may all now officially label me as one who is anti-Mormon or laughingly absurd, or any way you want. The moderators are free to remove my account from the forum. Hopefully I will meet you all some day in the celestial city. Until then, best wishes to you all. Even though you don't know it, you have lost a friend.

[MustardSeed]

21 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Ok my friends. I won't remain on a forum that mocks me and maligns my intent, deeming me as laughingly absurd. My journey into the world of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is now officially ended on both a local level and on this forum. You may all now officially label me as one who is anti-Mormon or laughingly absurd, or any way you want. The moderators are free to remove my account from the forum. Hopefully I will meet you all some day in the celestial city. Until then, best wishes to you all. Even though you don't know it, you have lost a friend.

Be well. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Ok my friends. I won't remain on a forum that mocks me and maligns my intent, deeming me as laughingly absurd. My journey into the world of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is now officially ended on both a local level and on this forum. You may all now officially label me as one who is anti-Mormon or laughingly absurd, or any way you want. The moderators are free to remove my account from the forum. Hopefully I will meet you all some day in the celestial city. Until then, best wishes to you all. Even though you don't know it, you have lost a friend.

I don’t think they were labeling you that (they can correct me if wrong).  But to someone who doesn’t understand the doctrine as we do, it doesn’t compute in our brain like it does in yours. It is simply a matter of difference of experience. 

To someone unfamiliar with another culture, they might assume dramatic portrayals are at least in the ballpark and take them seriously as they are meant to. But to someone familiar with the culture it may appear to be absurd.

I have been watching a lot of Asian shows lately and sometimes their portrayal of Americans has me laughing my head off, especially when they have gone to the effort to get American actors and film probably in America (could be Canada), but they don’t have an American check the script and the wording makes sense, but it is soooo awkward.  So close and yet so far away. 

But it is much more embarrassing to watch portrayals of Asians from Hollywood, especially older ones, even when trying to be respectful. Cringey.

It is all experience and perspective. We are all absurd and if laughingly so, at least someone is getting enjoyment out of it.  
 

You must have cringed at times with some of our ideas about your faith.  If not, I am impressed by what you can take seriously. 

Edited November 7 by Calm

[Raingirl]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Ok my friends. I won't remain on a forum that mocks me and maligns my intent, deeming me as laughingly absurd. My journey into the world of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is now officially ended on both a local level and on this forum. You may all now officially label me as one who is anti-Mormon or laughingly absurd, or any way you want. The moderators are free to remove my account from the forum. Hopefully I will meet you all some day in the celestial city. Until then, best wishes to you all. Even though you don't know it, you have lost a friend.

Always playing the victim. 

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I won't remain on a forum that mocks me and maligns my intent, deeming me as laughingly absurd.

Personal attacks are a violation of the board guidelines. If you feel that has happened to you, please report the offending behavior to the moderators so they can address it.

So far as I can tell though, nobody here has actually judged you to be laughingly absurd. 

 

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

My journey into the world of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is now officially ended on both a local level and on this forum.

As you wish. Best of luck in your future endeavors.