Mississippi Bishop Resigns from the Pulpit

[Amulek]

23 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well ok then.  Apologies for misunderstanding you. 

Thank you for saying that. I'm happy to move on and forget about it.

 

Quote

By the way I am not crying in my cheerios over lack of contact from my ward.

No, I understand.

Still, I can appreciate how crummy it probably feels to have people who used to be good friends become much more distant.

 

Quote

Look I know going after lost sheep have lots of situations and factors that impact how to go about it.  It is hard in the best of circumstances.  Having attempted it many, many times when active I realize it can be hard, discouraging and time consuming with often little to know positive results from the believers stand point.

I guess I've just kind of always viewed everyone as a lost sheep - with believers, non-believers, and even myself all just lost in different sorts of ways.

So, regardless of who it is, I always try to love, help, and uplift (at least, to the degree that I'm able) everyone I happen to run into. I've obviously still got a ways to go with people I meet on the internet.

 

[Teancum]

On 1/22/2024 at 9:22 AM, Duncan said:

What are your thoughts though about the general membership not really knowing about them as they weren't really talked about but yet it caused some to leave, how did the ones who knew about them who then left hear about them but not the general membership at large? was it a secret group who heard and then left?

My guess is more of the general membership knew about them than others are saying here.  No data.  Just a guess.

On 1/22/2024 at 9:22 AM, Duncan said:

I could care less about Brigham's polygamy and I knew about it years and years ago as well. Some folks care and some don't

That is "I couldn't care less"  😁

[Stormin' Mormon]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

 If no, you helped to tear down their beliefs.  

"Tearing down beliefs" and "helped to tear down beliefs" is, I think, a significant enough moving of the goal posts to be called out.

But even then, I'd push back against the verb choice.  These beliefs weren't torn down, they were not discredited, or proven untrue, or ridiculed, or mocked.  As a missionary in Mexico 25+ years ago, I never had to ask a convert to remove a shrine from their home, or had to discourage a new member from participating in local religious festivities on December 12, or had to instruct an investigator not to address their prayers to a favorite patron saint.

Even if were to I accept the loaded term, any tearing down done by your run-of-the-mill missionary is not usually targeted at any specific church or religion, and nothing is ever torn down unless something else is put in its place.  In that respect, it's more of a remodel than a demolition.  And in my book, that makes what LDS missionaries do a pretty weak sauce kind of tearing down.  It's even a kind of weak sauce "helping to tear down." 

 

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Dehlin is going belly up?  Really?  When is this happening?  

Please the thread from Nov. "MormonStories in Financial Trouble"

[Vanguard]

35 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Still, I can appreciate how crummy it probably feels to have people who used to be good friends become much more distant.

This is the part I get hung up on. My close friendships in the church (and there are not many of them) over the past 40-50 years was/has been so intertwined with a shared belief in the gospel/commitment to church that I have a hard time envisioning enough 'steam' to keep the friendship going after they leave. It's not that I think they're now lousy guys for leaving. It's just that so much of our conversation both serious and humorous/comical has revolved around church topics. There is now a major chasm in our relationship that once was a powerful bond. Some of these guys are now drinking, some of them treat Sunday as any other day to chill or recreate, and/or some are approaching/pursuing intimate relations that are quite divergent from what they once believed. To boot, some of these same men carry serious animus against what I had thought for so long was a strength in our friendship. This leaves my head spinning and as a result has chilled my interest in keeping close contact with them. It's almost as though I have severed one of my arms and my now former gospel-believing friend still wants to go out and play catch. 

This too feels crummy. : (

Edited to add: I should clarify that not many of my friends who have left the faith kept any contact with me either. This could be because it was also awkward for them, because they were hurt that I distanced from them, and/or because they no longer wanted anything to do with me or what I continued to represent. Who knows?

Edited January 23, 2024 by Vanguard

[Teancum]

6 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

"Tearing down beliefs" and "helped to tear down beliefs" is, I think, a significant enough moving of the goal posts to be called out.

But even then, I'd push back against the verb choice.  These beliefs weren't torn down, they were not discredited, or proven untrue, or ridiculed, or mocked.  As a missionary in Mexico 25+ years ago, I never had to ask a convert to remove a shrine from their home, or had to discourage a new member from participating in local religious festivities on December 12, or had to instruct an investigator not to address their prayers to a favorite patron saint.

Even if were to I accept the loaded term, any tearing down done by your run-of-the-mill missionary is not usually targeted at any specific church or religion, and nothing is ever torn down unless something else is put in its place.  In that respect, it's more of a remodel than a demolition.  And in my book, that makes what LDS missionaries do a pretty weak sauce kind of tearing down.  It's even a kind of weak sauce "helping to tear down." 

 

How do you think the parents of a protestant young adult who joins the church would feel about this?  How would they term it.  Really, you have to realize that the majority of people in the world who run into LDS missionaries view them as a nuances, annoying, offensive in some cases and so on. I know my wife's parents were not all that thrilled with their daughter joining the church at 22.  They were active participating Presbyterians.  Her minister did not feel good about her taking all the good and adding on to it.  In fact he felt it a grave eternal error for her. Her mom thought she was joining a cult. 

[Teancum]

15 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Please the thread from Nov. "MormonStories in Financial Trouble"

Sure.  I was aware of that thread.  I think it was over stated.  Mormon Stories seems to be chugging right along.

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Teancum said:

How do you think the parents of a protestant young adult who joins the church would feel about this?  How would they term it.  Really, you have to realize that the majority of people in the world who run into LDS missionaries view them as a nuances, annoying, offensive in some cases and so on. I know my wife's parents were not all that thrilled with their daughter joining the church at 22.  They were active participating Presbyterians.  Her minister did not feel good about her taking all the good and adding on to it.  In fact he felt it a grave eternal error for her. Her mom thought she was joining a cult. 

I'm thankful that the majority of nonmembers that I ran into on my mission in northern california were very kind to us.  Especially those who had no interest in our message (the kindest people I experienced were an older Muslim man and a Jewish man, from different areas).

 

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Conversely, the neighbor has no interest in my hobby of freeze drying foot.

I, too, have no interest in your collection of freeze-dried feet 😁

[Vanguard]

2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I, too, have no interest in your collection of freeze-dried feet 😁

Trust me - freeze dried feet is nothing to laugh at. ;o

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

For an active believing Catholic to become a Latter day Saint they pretty much are going to have to give up a lot of their beliefs. 

They can retain far more than they have to give up.

As a Catholic, I disagree, especially if you add religious practices. Catholicism, especially traditional Catholicism, is a ritual heavy religion. If I were to convert to LDS, I would have to give up so many of my religious practices. I would have to alter so many of my religious beliefs (the words may remain the same, but the definition/belief would be different). So many things that are at the heart of my spirituality would be gone.

I mean, there's really no problem there, because that's what it means to convert from one religion to another. However, I, too, am not fond of that statement by President Hinckley. It really seems to be whitewashing what it means to convert.

What good is there in Catholicism that is not in Mormonism that I would be able to retain if I were to convert? If the answer is "not much" then it's not really adding to good that I already have. It's keeping the good that we share in common, and then replacing the uniquely Catholic beliefs/practices with LDS ones.

Again, that's what conversion means. I just don't think the act of conversion should be downplayed by saying it's just adding something.

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Can you point to anything in my post where I vilified the members of the ward?  Is all I said was"I only wanted to share that members don't need other reasons like finding something someone said as a reason to never talk to him again."  

 

I'm talking about the members of your ward, when you stopped attending and came out.  You feel justified in condemning them for the way they treated you (and I agree with you) but you accused me of vilifying the bishop for bringing up an unkind thing he did. 

Why are you justified in condemning a member for the way that they acted after you left but when I do the same thing to an ex-member it's "vilification"? 

Quote

Do you think people need to find some horrible thing someone has said before they will sever that relationship with the bishop?  Or is it possible they might be so hurt/angry/betrayed/whatever, that he is leaving the Church is enough for them to server that relationship.  I never made some dramatic exit or public postings.  It didn't change the end result of members no longer having any contact with me.  

I think that sometimes there are justifiable reasons for stepping away from a relationship when the parameters change and sometimes people do that for unjustifiable reasons. I would guess that your loss of friendship was mostly due to you coming out as gay when you left the church and I don't think it was justifiable.  

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Some, certainly.  Observance of holidays, for example.

But the observation of those holidays would be different. I don't just enjoy Christmas because of family time, opening presents, etc. I also enjoy going to all 3 Christmas masses. I enjoy the Advent masses and traditions that lead up to Christmas. I enjoy the Catholic traditions surrounding the holidays.

The same applies to Easter. It's not just a Sunday celebration. It's the entirety of Holy Week.

And then there is the entire liturgical calendar. And the canonical hours.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

If they were Catholic before did they continue to partake of Catholic communion? 

Likely not.  But they do take the Sacrament.

But the meaning has changed dramatically.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Attend Mass? 

Likely not.  But they do attend services on Sunday.

But those services are so vastly different from a traditional Catholic mass.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Do the bit with the Rosary? 

I assume "the bit" is a reference to this:

Quote

The Rosary^[1] (/ˈroʊzəri/; Latin: rosarium, in the sense of "crown of roses" or "garland of roses"),^[2] also known as the Dominican Rosary^[3][4] (as distinct from other forms of rosary such as the Franciscan Crown, Bridgettine Rosary, Rosary of the Holy Wounds, etc.), refers to a set of prayers used primarily in the Catholic Church, and to the physical string of knots or beads used to count the component prayers. When referring to the prayer, the word is usually capitalized ("the Rosary", as is customary for other names of prayers, such as "the Lord's Prayer", and "the Hail Mary"); when referring to the prayer beads as an object, it is written with a lower-case initial letter (e.g. "a rosary bead").

So, likely not.  But they do continue to pray in many other ways and venues.

The rosary is dear to me because of my devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary (which I would also have to give up). There are many other prayers, litanies, devotions that would have to go. Saints, relics, canonical hours. Monastic retreats. Sacramentals (blessed objects). Etc.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Except the orthodox Christian creeds? 

Likely not.  But they do accept sacred writings in addition to the Bible.

Meanwhile, do Latter-day Saints and Catholics both have faith in Jesus Christ?  That He died for our sins?   That He called and appointed apostles anciently, and that they led the ancient church He organized?  Do they believe in sacred ordinances officiated by those with "priesthood" authority?  Do they believe discipleship involves faith, repentance, obedience, service to others, personal sacrifice, work, creating and participating in communities of faith, etc.?

True, but for some of this the meaning is vastly different, such as the nature of Jesus Christ.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

If no, you helped to tear down their beliefs. 

Some beliefs and behaviors need to be supplanted, yes.  Most converts, however, have ample beliefs and behaviors that ought not be torn down, but rather strengthened, modified and improved upon.  Many converts bring with them beliefs and behaviors that can and ought to be applied by the Latter-day Saints.

 

"Tearing down" is a very loaded phrase, and I wouldn't use it. However, President Hinckley's statement is too... soft?... about what it means to convert from one religion to another.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

As a Catholic, I disagree, especially if you add religious practices. Catholicism, especially traditional Catholicism, is a ritual heavy religion. If I were to convert to LDS, I would have to give up so many of my religious practices. I would have to alter so many of my religious beliefs (the words may remain the same, but the definition/belief would be different). So many things that are at the heart of my spirituality would be gone.

I mean, there's really no problem there, because that's what it means to convert from one religion to another. However, I, too, am not fond of that statement by President Hinckley. It really seems to be whitewashing what it means to convert.

What good is there in Catholicism that is not in Mormonism that I would be able to retain if I were to convert? If the answer is "not much" then it's not really adding to good that I already have. It's keeping the good that we share in common, and then replacing the uniquely Catholic beliefs/practices with LDS ones.

Again, that's what conversion means. I just don't think the act of conversion should be downplayed by saying it's just adding something.

I've always interpreted that statement as Pres. Hinckley was referring to "keeping the good we share in common" when he said that conversion adds to what a person already has.  I agree that the way you interpret his words (as him saying that people will bring something unique and not found within the LDS church with them) doesn't work.

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

I think it is vilifying when people jump all over someone and judge every single word they might say like "brainwashing" as an excuse to judge someone they don't even know or have any idea what that person is really like or don't take into account that words are often said in anger.

And YES, the same needs to be said about how everyone wants to judge an entire ward for being guilty of not handling the situation perfectly.  Everyone needs to calm down, take a step back.  Time might tell a very different story for both groups.  I personally don't believe that every single member of the ward had the exact same reaction to what happened.  Some might have been very offended that the bishop made remarks over the pulpit.  Others might feel it was appropriate and that he has earned the right to present his reasons for leaving to everyone all at once rather than have his departure driven by speculation and gossip.  

Have you been able to watch the bishop's tik tocs that he made after he left?  (I'm only asking because I can't tell if you are speaking from a position of personal knowledge about what the bishop said and how he acted or if you are just going off of what people have mentioned on here).

[smac97]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Quote

Conversely, the neighbor has no interest in my hobby of freeze drying foot.

I, too, have no interest in your collection of freeze-dried feet 😁

Eww.  Of all the typos I could have made...

On a totally separate matter, I have a funny story about a verbal gaffe my sister made years ago when she was teaching at the MTC in Provo.  She was teaching a small group of missionaries, all elders, who were to serve in Vanuatu, and so were learning Bislama, the native language (an interesting form of pidgen English).  Just prior to lunch, she gave the elders a practice language exercise to work on in companionships.  Two elders became somewhat engrossed in the exercise, such that they kept talking after my sister called the elders to come together for a closing prayer.  The following conversation, or something like it, then took place:

• Sis. Macdonald: Okay, Elders!  Time to close up, have a prayer, and get you all to lunch!  Please come back to your seats.

{Beat as two elders in the back of the room keep talking in Bislama.}

• Sis. Macdonald: Elders?
• Elder 1: Yes, sister, we'll be there in just a sec.

{Another beat.}

• Sis. Macdonald: Elders, c'mon.  It's time to close up.
• Elder 2: Just a sec.  We're nearly done.
• Sis. Macdonald: Elders, we're running out of time.
• Elder 1: Okay.  Just a sec.
• Sister Macdonald {sternly}: Elders, you will have plenty of secs after lunch.  Now it's time for prayer.
• Elder 1: What?  What did you say?
• Sister Macdonald: I said you will have plenty of time after lunch. 
• Elder 1: That's not what you said!

Suffice it to say, the elders never let her forget what she said (nor, it seems, have I).

 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 24, 2024 by smac97

[Stormin' Mormon]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

How do you think the parents of a protestant young adult who joins the church would feel about this?  How would they term it.  Really, you have to realize that the majority of people in the world who run into LDS missionaries view them as a nuances, annoying, offensive in some cases and so on. I know my wife's parents were not all that thrilled with their daughter joining the church at 22.  They were active participating Presbyterians.  Her minister did not feel good about her taking all the good and adding on to it.  In fact he felt it a grave eternal error for her. Her mom thought she was joining a cult. 

Mission story time: I taught a mother-daughter pair who had been fairly active in their protestant church.  This church had a rather peculiar prayer custom, in that they would begin any prayer with a mantra-like recitation, invoking the blood of Christ, before launching into the meat-and-potatoes of their prayerful petition.  They eventually abandoned that practice and instead adopted the standard LDS prayer format.  You know what I did to make that happen?  Absolutely nothing.  I never mentioned it, never pointed it out as odd or out of place, never asked them to pray like a Mormon.  In other words, I did not tear down their beliefs.  

My argument is simply this: while beliefs may be abandoned as part of any conversion process (tautological, that), the LDS methodology of "pray and know," and "come and see" cannot reasonably be characterized as a tearing down.  At worst, the missionaries are simply handing the potential convert the sledgehammer with which they do their own remodeling.

I am sympathetic to the feelings of loved ones that are left behind when a convert departs their faith community (an odd echo of the other discussions going on in this thread).  But the subjective feelings of third party bystanders in the conversion process have less probative value than the experience and perceptions of the principals who are actually involved in that process.    

[Calm]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

I, too, have no interest in your collection of freeze-dried feet 😁

Eewwww

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Vanguard said:

Yes, I'm sure he's hurting but those comments said in a public forum are hurtful even to me who does not know him.

I agree with your full assessment.
 

When I hear stories like this (well, any stories because it’s what I do), I imagine myself as a ‘participant’, in this case a ward member or a church friend of his and think how his behaviour would make me feel. I think if I was in that ward that day it would have confused me (his comments weren’t that focused) and surprised me, but bishops and often their wives are asked at times to give farewell testimonies in my experience so I would have assumed it was something similar and not really been bothered for anyone but the bishop himself who was obviously troubled about something. 

I would look at it as I do most innovative sacrament meetings that break the rule book, not that big of a deal as long as it isn’t turned into a habit. 

It is what came after that most concerns me. I worry for those who went to him for counseling, who opened up to him and shared deep concerns. Depending on their interactions, I can see these individuals having significant difficulties in reconciling what he was at the time trying to help them with and his behaviour towards the Church members now. I would wonder if I was one how he really thought about me and knowing me back when I felt a real need to go to counseling (though with one of my psych professors and not a bishop), I would probably assume he viewed me as one of the worst. And that would hurt deeply and throw me way back in my shell (my attempting to get out of it was why I went to my professor and would have gone to the bishop probably if that wasn’t an option since I had no money)…so I am concerned that there are some vulnerable individuals now hurting and now cutting themselves off from what was once a source of help for them, their bishop, and possibly others.

I do wish because of the role of counselor that the bishop played for his ward, he hadn’t gone to social media to voice his complaints for at least a few months so the ward could adjust to seeing him as “not the bishop” again so as to remove that additional risk of emotional injuries as much as possible. 

Edited January 24, 2024 by Calm

[JustAnAustralian]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I would have to alter so many of my religious beliefs (the words may remain the same, but the definition/belief would be different). 

If you were converting, wouldn't it be because your beliefs had already changed in those ways though?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

How do you think the parents of a protestant young adult who joins the church would feel about this?  How would they term it.  Really, you have to realize that the majority of people in the world who run into LDS missionaries view them as a nuances, annoying, offensive in some cases and so on. I know my wife's parents were not all that thrilled with their daughter joining the church at 22.  They were active participating Presbyterians.  Her minister did not feel good about her taking all the good and adding on to it.  In fact he felt it a grave eternal error for her. Her mom thought she was joining a cult. 

When I encounter a young relative or friend about to go on a mission and it’s appropriate, I take the time to talk to them about what they are really asking of investigators and what it could mean for them and their families, immediate and extended and friends…and therefore to be respectful and kind and not pushy to help with the adjustment and not to take it personally when someone changes their mind.  Suggest they imagine what it would be like for them if they became convinced Catholics were right, how their families would react and how odd they would feel attending mass for a time until it became more familiar.
 

They pick it up relatively quickly once they look at it that way. 

Edited January 24, 2024 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, JustAnAustralian said:

If you were converting, wouldn't it be because your beliefs had already changed in those ways though?

Yes, exactly. My point wasn't about conversion, because I'm totally with you that in conversion all that would change. My point was that President Hinckley's statement: “Bring with you all that you have of good and truth which you have received from whatever source, and come and let us see if we may add to it" is, well, not how conversion works. His statement seems to downplay the fact that what the person thinks is good and true prior to conversion but is contrary to LDS beliefs would have to be relinquished. I used myself and my beliefs and practices as an example of how his statement doesn't seem to match up to the face-value interpretation of it (some, like Bluebell, have offered other interpretation that could work).

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Joshua said:

 

If we think that the theory that is taught by the church is the only doctrine that is acceptable by God, then the fact that we baptize those who have passed away is evidence of this belief. Because we think that our doctrine must be embraced either here on earth or in the spirit world after we die in order for a person to be able to spend eternity with God, we also believe that there is no other doctrine that will accomplish the same thing. The belief that we are the soul receptacles and sources of good, truth, and light from God is something that we can say with absolute certainty. It is beyond my comprehension how you could ever believe that we are taught that we are not. 

 

When you are attempting to persuade people that other gospels are good, you are ignoring the fact that we think that our gospel was the only gospel in our pre-mortal life, and that it will continue to be the only gospel in our post-mortal life. On the off chance that Heavenly Father, Jesus, or the Joly Ghost decide to travel to a lower kingdom in order to impart knowledge to the inhabitants of that kingdom, they will impart the gospel that we adhere to here on earth, and not any of the other gospels that can be found here on earth. Why do you choose to ignore the fact that we believe that every other gospel that exists on earth was created by humans? 

As young men who were raised in the church, we were instructed that the reason we need to knock on doors is because, in the absence of the restored gospel, the individuals who are currently contained within the homes that we are endeavoring to convert are unable to coexist with God in the hereafter. Simply put, it is as easy as that! Without the gospel that we adhere to, we are taught that individuals are lacking something essential. We have been instructed that the only place where genuine repentance may occur is within our own church. It is taught to us that the only baptism that may be accepted is the one that comes from the gospel that we follow. 

 

Although I understand that you will not accept the reality that some individuals and families regard their home to be sacred in the same way that Mormons consider the temple to be. However, this does not change the fact that a significant number of people adhere to this belief. As a result, the actions of a Mormon missionary who knocks on the front door of a home, without knowing whether the home has been blessed or sanctified as a house of the Lord, are identical to those of a pair of Jehovah's witnesses who walked through the gate of a Mormon temple, knocked on the front door of the temple, and began attempting to convert the people who were inside the temple. I would want to request that you take some time to consider the fact that you were raised to believe that the only way for non-members to be able to live with you and God in heaven is for them to adopt the gospel that you believe in, rather than the gospel that another person believes in. In essence, what I am attempting to express to you is that you are attempting to have it both ways. As I have demonstrated above, you state that "the message is not that we are the soul receptacles and sources of good and truth and light from God." You make that statement, and it sounds wonderful; yet, your actions speak a different language. Why would you go door to door trying to persuade individuals to adopt the Mormon faith if you actually believe that Mormonism is not the only religion that is good? Why would you make an effort to convert them to Mormonism if you believe that the religion that is located on the other side of the front door has the power to assist the individuals who are now inside in gaining access to heaven? 

 

It wasn't until I was given the opportunity to see people of other faiths from the outside that I realized how I genuinely saw them. My perception of them was that they were victims of Satan's vast effort to discourage as many people as possible from entering heaven. As a result of the fact that they did not grow up in the church, I realized that they did not have the same level of understanding of the true gospel that I had while I was growing up in the one and only true church on the planet. I knocked on a front door, and it didn't matter what the people inside the home believed; if they weren't Mormon, they were following a gospel that couldn't bring them or their family back to God. They were in need of what I was preaching, they needed what i grew up believing, not what they believe, and as a result, I would do everything in my power to persuade them that I was right and they were wrong. It did not matter to me if their acceptance of the gospel that I was selling would disrupt or ruin the relationships within their family because I knew what they required in order to be happy for all of eternity. I knew how they could live with God some day. I knew I was right and they were wrong.

 

Would you please tell me what the Bishop said in his talk that was so terrible?

 

Not meant for me but it's the truth, what you say. 

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Joshua said:

As a result, the actions of a Mormon missionary who knocks on the front door of a home, without knowing whether the home has been blessed or sanctified as a house of the Lord, are identical to those of a pair of Jehovah's witnesses who walked through the gate of a Mormon temple, knocked on the front door of the temple, and began attempting to convert the people who were inside the temple.

If someone knocked on the door of the temple, they would be politely turned away.  I don't see how someone knocking on the door of the temple with the goal of teaching their beliefs is a problem.  Now, if they enter without permission, that is a problem.  But knocking on the door of the temple and asking for the permission to teach isn't a problem.

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Joshua said:

If we think that the theory that is taught by the church is the only doctrine that is acceptable by God, then the fact that we baptize those who have passed away is evidence of this belief. Because we think that our doctrine must be embraced either here on earth or in the spirit world after we die in order for a person to be able to spend eternity with God, we also believe that there is no other doctrine that will accomplish the same thing. The belief that we are the soul receptacles and sources of good, truth, and light from God is something that we can say with absolute certainty. It is beyond my comprehension how you could ever believe that we are taught that we are not. 

We do not teach that we are the sole receptacles and sources of good, truth, and light.  Yes, we teach that our doctrine is the true doctrine but that doesn't mean that we are the sole receptacles and sources of good, truth, and light.  Those two aren't related.  You could say we teach that we are the sole receptacles and sources of the true doctrine, but not that we are the sole receptacles and sources of good, truth, and light.