Can a Person Covenant with God Without Becoming a Member of the House of Israel, God's Covenant People?

[Rain]

5 minutes ago, Potter said:

"Priesthood keys distinguish The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from any other organization on earth. Many other organizations can and do make your life better here in mortality. But no other organization can and will influence your life after death."

Thank you. I would agree that what you said is what he said. I do think he is putting a limited definition to what he said though as the church teaches that you can take knowledge with you and that it wil benefit you. "True" things may be learned in other churches.

[Mfbnew]

3 minutes ago, Mfbnew said:

To put it another way, if you, as a Mormon, decided to bid adieu to the church and its self-proclaimed authority. 

And of course you also do not understand this as well--

IF one decides to leave the church- he would have to stand in front of Jesus personally, seeing his glory, and say "Nope.  I don't believe it" AND he would have to know all that our prophet knows AND MORE- he would have to know what is "correct" as well as Jesus himself does AND DENY what he knows to be true- to "qualify" become Son of Perdition.

In other words, he would be standing in front of Christ personally KNOWING THAT HE IS THE CHRIST FULLY and then deny it!!

Standing in front of the Sun and denying that he did not see it's heat and light???

THAT is what Satan essentially did, as we believe the story.

You would be accepting Satan over Christ - in full knowledge!!   YOU will KNOW that its authority is NOT "self-proclaimed', but the truth!!

If you want such a decision- .....

 

[Mfbnew]

10 minutes ago, Potter said:

What’s your take on that quote from our dear prophet Nelson? Apologies for the encore performance! I'm at a loss figuring out how to edit.

Look for the three dots at the upper right corner of the posting rectangle.   One of those dots says "edit".   Highlight what you want to change, and then re-post your post.

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, Potter said:

"Priesthood keys distinguish The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from any other organization on earth. Many other organizations can and do make your life better here in mortality. But no other organization can and will influence your life after death."

I understand that as him speaking about our doctrine concerning baptism for the dead (and other ordinances that are performed on behalf of those who have died). 

As far as I am aware, our church is the only one that teaches that people can learn about and accept the gospel after death, and that ordinances performed by the living for those who have already passed away, like baptism, have an influence on those people's lives after death.

Do other churches believe that the the church and its members can do things that influence people who have already died?  I've never heard of that before.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Potter said:

No, I'm absolutely beginning to get the hang of the Mormon church. You say you're a Christian, yet you also insist that Christianity has no authority. Quite the paradox, isn't it? It seems I'm beginning to grasp the Mormon church's take on authority. Am I on the right track here? If my pastor and his Deacons rolled out the red carpet for your bishop at their church for an interfaith shindig, Mormons would assert that the only one in the room with genuine and true divine authority would be your Bishop. Is that statement on point?

Does your pastor believe that my bishop has divine authority equal to his?

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, Rain said:

Thank you. I would agree that what you said is what he said. I do think he is putting a limited definition to what he said though as the church teaches that you can take knowledge with you and that it wil benefit you. "True" things may be learned in other churches.

Assumed he was speaking about how the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints is the only one that believes and performs ordinances for the dead.

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Potter said:

What’s your take on that quote from our dear prophet Nelson? Apologies for the encore performance! I'm at a loss figuring out how to edit.

This is a sincere question and I'm not trying to be snarky, but you are coming off very condescending in this post.  Is that an accident or is it the tone you are trying to convey?  

[Nofear]

The scriptures have some application to the question.

"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you." Matthew 7:22-23.

It's not to say, doing good things and helping people are bad. Not at all. Yet it remains, doing good doesn't make covenants with God. Those covenants have to be made through the property authority, one can't just say they did make covenants. "Very truly I tell you Pharisees, anyone who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber." John 10:1. 

[Mfbnew]

30 minutes ago, Potter said:

You say you're a Christian, yet you also insist that Christianity has no authority. Quite the paradox, isn't it? 

Of course not.  What IS "authority" and how does one get it??

Category Error in logic, based on a double-meaning of the word "Christianity". 

I never said that "Christianity has no authority"

Of course it has authority for its members because the members- including us from our perspective- have whatever authority WE give whoever we believe is in authority.

I don't know what denomination you are in but do you accept that the Pope has authority over you?   A Catholic will tell you that YOUR pastor does not have authority over what he believes.

Baptists will not accept- perhaps- what a Jehovah's Witness pastor tells them

Same thing!

It's an easy concept.  It's a verbal misunderstanding.    

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

We are asserting something you do not believe- and I believe that YOUR pastor has no authority over me.

I could make the same argument you do, and we could go round and round, but I will not do that.

Edited January 22, 2025 by Mfbnew

[CV75]

34 minutes ago, Potter said:

No, I'm absolutely beginning to get the hang of the Mormon church. You say you're a Christian, yet you also insist that Christianity has no authority. Quite the paradox, isn't it? It seems I'm beginning to grasp the Mormon church's take on authority. Am I on the right track here? If my pastor and his Deacons rolled out the red carpet for your bishop at their church for an interfaith shindig, Mormons would assert that the only one in the room with genuine and true divine authority would be your Bishop. Is that statement on point?

Christian denominations believe all sorts of things about the priesthood keys. A person or church can be Christian with or without authority; no paradox there. If by “mortal construct” you mean lacking priesthood keys, Christian churches other than ours lack the priesthood keys, despite all the good they do possess without them. Everything good we learn and do in any church can make our life better in mortality. Some of this we can bring into the next life, but the priesthood keys bring even more. If you believe your pastor has priesthood keys, why the umbrage/playing around (whichever it is)? 

 

Edited January 22, 2025 by CV75

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, Potter said:

What’s your take on that quote from our dear prophet Nelson? Apologies for the encore performance! I'm at a loss figuring out how to edit.

The quote by itself can give that impression.  I don’t believe given the way Pres Nelson has talked elsewhere he means nothing that happens to you in this life through the influence of other churches goes with you into the next life, but is more likely talking about ordinances performed by other churches having eternal authority where they may have mortal authority (signifying marriage recognized by society or membership in that particular faith or leadership in a particular faith).

I may try to search for what he has taught at other times, may not.  Not concentrating much today, easily distracted.

It is our doctrine though that other churches have impacts that can last through the eternities as people can receive testimonies of Jesus Christ and his teachings outside our faith (for example, Joseph Smith would not have read and trusted the Bible to pray to God if he hadn’t had such a testimony).  Such knowledge is incomplete and does not include any salvific (ordinances required for exaltation) ordinances we are aware of, but that doesn’t imply there has been no influence/impact on mortals in such faiths once they are dead, that somehow they forget how they gained a testimony of Christ and accepted him as part of their life and have to start from scratch in knowledge as appears to happen when adult spirits get popped into wee baby bodies…or at least attached to them and the veil gets dropped over the memories of the preexistence.

A good Catholic, for example, who abides by the teachings of that faith will be worthy of the Terrestrial Kingdom after death even if they refuse baptism and accepting the parts of the Gospel they do not already know.  If there was no post death influence, seems to me they would be Telestial bound at the point of death because the natural man reassert itself and rule.

Edited January 22, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, bluebell said:

are coming off very condescending in this post

Not just this post.

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, Potter said:

All I see is the words report and share

You now have 26 posts, 25 was the needed threshold.  Try again.

[Vanguard]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

There is a difference in saying other churches lack authority and playing/pretending church.  My daughter pretended to be a mom when she was little, but never felt she was actually a mom.  People who go to other churches believe in those churches or their tenants or that they are led by God.  They are not pretending.  They are not playing. It's not the same thing.

I would take it one step further and say that not only are they not pretending but that our Father-in-Heaven very much endorses those efforts. Though the ordinances will require proper authority at some point, this authority pales in comparison to the contrite heart who makes covenants with God. The proper authority is but a mere formality when measured against an individual's sincere desire to approximate the Savior. We should keep our eye on that prize.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Vanguard said:

The proper authority is but a mere formality when measured against an individual's sincere desire to approximate the Savior. We should keep our eye on that prize.

I don’t believe it’s a mere formality even in terms of importance, because it’s essential according to God (or so we believe).  Speculation:  I will not be the least surprised if it turns out there is even an indelible spiritual component of change with baptism (and maybe other ordinances) as I believe Catholics see it, for me likely a mark of God’s touch on our body as well as our spirit.  Just as we can see physical inheritance in our genetics, I like to think we have spiritual genetics as well and when we are adopted by Christ as his, that our spiritual genetics show that we are now his children.  Sure, adoption in mortality is a legality, not a physical change of DNA, but I like the idea that God can make his adoption of us more explicit.

Edited January 23, 2025 by Calm

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Potter said:

Not trying to be snarky. Sometimes I play around a little too much.

Thanks for explaining.  It's hard to read tone correctly online.  It's probably the term "prophet Nelson" that was making me question what you were trying to imply.  We actually believe that all of the 12 apostles and the entire first presidency (which is comprised of Pres. Nelson, Pres. Eyring, and President Oaks) are prophets.  But President Nelson is the president of the church and the presiding authority.

[Vanguard]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I don’t believe it’s a mere formality even in terms of importance, because it’s essential according to God (or so we believe).  Speculation:  I will not be the least surprised if it turns out there is even an indelible spiritual component of change with baptism (and maybe other ordinances) as I believe Catholics see it, for me likely a mark of God’s touch on our body as well as our spirit.  Just as we can see physical inheritance in our genetics, I like to think we have spiritual genetics as well and when we are adopted as Christ as his, that our spiritual genetics show that we are now his children.  Sure, adoption in mortality is a legality, not a physical change of DNA, but I like the idea that God can make his adoption of us more explicit.

That's an interesting take. I'll have to 'cogitate' on that a bit. I struggle with anything that might sound like I have a 'leg up' on another due to receiving the ordinances from the proper authority though I don't know how I can escape that conclusion. : ) 

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

struggle with anything that might sound like I have a 'leg up' on another due to receiving the ordinances from the proper authority though I don't know how I can escape that conclusion.

I don’t see it as a leg up, just one of many things that come together from God that pull us away from our natural man towards him.

It would be, imo, like saying I was ahead of others in school because I was gifted in math….but I was way behind in music and PE and anything that require physical or social ability, so I got some not so great grades in all my PE classes that graded on anything more than just attendance e and even failed a couple classes in university because I was too freaked to go to the teacher and drop out (I couldn’t bring myself to hit others in a karate class I took to improve my confidence and just stopped going rather than go admit that to the teacher…which had the opposite intended effect).

I would not be surprised if there were other faiths that were better at creating humility, creating trust or hope in God, in turning our lives over to God and living secure in our faith in Christ’s grace or separating ourselves from the world and devoting ourselves to God (not saying we don’t teach that, just think others might be better at it).

Edited January 23, 2025 by Calm

[Mfbnew]

8 hours ago, Potter said:

All I see is the words report and share

I think that Calm pointed out that you may have not had enough posts yet to get the "edit" button- but at least you will know now where to find it.  Keep checking.

[Tony uk]

I came to this Dialogue, at the end of last year. The reason that I joined, is a fairly simple one. To learn and understand as much as possible about LDS, the people, the teachings and all things that go with it. The only preconception that I came with, was the LDS members are the most Christian people that I know. Well, this Dialogue has confirmed to me, the people are fantastic.

 I was very much prepared, to hear things, that are unfamiliar in my own church (RC). My own learning of LDS has been put on hold for the time being due to personal reasons, but will reconvene in time. And both my learning, and understanding will grow with time. 

I only hope other people, who visit this dialogue are patient with their enquiries.

 

Apologies for any incorrect wording used in this post. 

[manol]

On 1/22/2025 at 5:09 PM, Potter said:

No, I'm absolutely beginning to get the hang of the Mormon church. You say you're a Christian, yet you also insist that Christianity has no authority. Quite the paradox, isn't it? It seems I'm beginning to grasp the Mormon church's take on authority. Am I on the right track here? If my pastor and his Deacons rolled out the red carpet for your bishop at their church for an interfaith shindig, Mormons would assert that the only one in the room with genuine and true divine authority would be your Bishop. Is that statement on point?

 

On 1/22/2025 at 5:23 PM, Potter said:

Not trying to be snarky. Sometimes I play around a little too much.

 

The following is just my opinion.

My perception is that there are discontinuities between some of the official doctrines or positions or teachings of the LDS Church, and the personal beliefs of some of the long-term, fully dedicated members on this board.  And I think you are seeing some of that. 

I think you can judge the tree by its fruit, which in this context would include the members on this board.  I too disagree with the LDS Church on some things, but imo it DOES produce really good people, who (imo) sometimes evolve beyond where the mainstream LDS Church happens to be.  And imo their spiritual development is often due to their application of principles they were TAUGHT BY the LDS Church. 

Let me share with you a model of personal evolution I learned from psychiatrist Scott Peck, author of The Road Less Travelled and The Different Drum.  In the latter book he describes four stages of human spiritual development.  This will start out seeming like an irrelevant tangent but I think it may make sense in the end:

Peck noticed an unexpected pattern in his patients who stuck with the therapy process all the way through to completion:  If they started out as non-believers they tended to become believers; and if they started out as believers they tended to become non-believers!  He studied this in detail and concluded that there are four stages of human spiritual development.  Going by memory here:

Stage One:  Chaotic and anti-social.  This is the stage children almost always start out in, and about one in five adults are still in this stage.  They are lurching from one disaster to another.  What they need is structure and order, commandments to follow, rules to live by, and inclusion in a warm and supportive community.  They often find this in religion, in a 12-step program, or in some other solid institution such as the military.

Stage Two:  Formal and institutional.  In this stage the person is transformed and uplifted by the teachings and principles and fellowship of the community they join.  They thrive as they learn and follow the rules and take control over their behavior and their lives.  Their community is often somewhat exclusive, perhaps embracing something of an "us versus them" viewpoint, but this attribute serves to more reassuringly enfold and include them, and to all-the-more-highly value those within the group. 

Stage Three:  Skeptical and individual.  This is a lonely time.  The person starts to see disconnects between the highest values they have been taught and the actual practices of their group, and so they start to distance themselves from the mainstream.  They may leave and join another group, in hopes of finding what they are looking for.  They may leave and go it alone.  They may stay in their original group but will be aware that they don't really fit in.  In some cases they enter into open conflict with their original group, whether from within or without.

Stage Four:  Mystical and communal.  If the person does not get bogged down in a war against his original group, he starts to reconstruct his own belief system from first principles which he can be completely at peace with.  He starts to see through a far more inclusive lens than he did before.  He may have mystical experiences here and there which directly inform his beliefs.  He may return to full participation in his original group, perhaps even using the same terminology, but his beliefs will be based primarily on his own experiences rather than on following someone else's instructions.

Okay, now I'm going to try to tie it all together.

Imo the LDS Church is an excellent Stage Two religion.  It does a superb job of making bad people good, and of making good people better.  But it cannot be all things to all people, and it does not do a particularly good job of retaining its Stage Three members.  That being said, imo the LDS Church has a disproportionate number of Stage Four members, some of which you will find on this board.

Imo the official doctrines of the LDS Church tend to be those of a Stage Two religion.  They do not necessarily stand up well to values-based skeptical inquiry, BUT imo there IS room in the LDS Church for its Stage Four members, who tend to be less concerned with the doctrinal details and more concerned with the light and love they see in the big picture. 

So @Potter, what I'm suggesting to you is, that there is a LOT more to the LDS "package deal" than what you see in the official positions given on church websites.  Mormonism in its full form really does offer a complete package, or as close to it as I'm aware of.  And imo some of the people you are encountering on this forum are evidence of that. 

Arguably one take-away from this is that, no matter where an individual happens to be, they are on the path of progression.  And just as the high school senior is not of greater merit or value than the first grader, the "further along the path" person is not of greater merit of value than the person who still has more of the journey yet ahead of them.

(I think I'm one of those Stage Three guys who has decided to "go it alone", just so you know where I'm coming from.)

Edited January 24, 2025 by manol

[Peacefully]

On 1/22/2025 at 3:53 PM, JVW said:

I've interacted with Christians who were upset that the LDS view their baptism as not authorized, but I don't think I've ever had a conversation with a Christian who got upset, who believed that their baptism was necessary for salvation, and/or that they became a covenant member of the house of Israel when they were baptized. Authority doesn't matter if one is doing something to symbolically represent their commitment to Christ. It's entirely possible that people could have something like a "Christian Birthday" to celebrate the date of when they accepted Christ into their heart and became saved. If someone celebrates their love of God with a ceremony, whether it's authorized or not doesn't diminish it. Nobody would be upset that their "Christian Birthday" where they turned 5 wasn't authorized. That's not the point of it. It's just to mark a special occasion.

If a Christian truly believes that baptism is a necessary part of following Christ and they are offended at the thought that authority is required then there are two roads to take. Either authority isn't required so who cares what the LDS say. Or authority is required and I imagine that Christian would spend time, in accordance with how much they care, researching God's authority and then probably end up doing a Catholic baptism or an LDS one. From what I understand many Christians believe that they all have authority and are all prophets which doesn't quite line up with the complex history of Christianity and I think is a lazy statement made in ignorance. If there is confusion about who truly has authority, then they may consider getting baptized by a variety of different sects in order to have all of their bases covered. But I don't think this is really a major concern among Christians.

The church I grew up in absolutely taught that one must be baptized to be saved. In fact, I remember the preacher saying if you died in a car wreck on your way to be baptized you would go to hell. I may be one of the few converts who found the LDS church to be less strict than the one they came from, lol. 

[JVW]

11 hours ago, Peacefully said:

The church I grew up in absolutely taught that one must be baptized to be saved. In fact, I remember the preacher saying if you died in a car wreck on your way to be baptized you would go to hell. I may be one of the few converts who found the LDS church to be less strict than the one they came from, lol. 

I'm curious to hear read your perspective about how potentially offensive it would be to hear that the baptism isn't properly authorized. I really don't believe that that is an issue that is at the top of the list for Christians who hate Mormons. I'm pretty sure the "you worship a different Jesus and believe in a works-based salvation" is the thing that they're on about.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't really care that other churches view the authority in my church as false and coming from the devil. I think it's sad and comes from a place of ignorance. I don't think many are intentionally malicious toward the LDS church so I just go along doing my thing.

[JVW]

12 hours ago, manol said:

 

 

The following is just my opinion.

My perception is that there are discontinuities between some of the official doctrines or positions or teachings of the LDS Church, and the personal beliefs of some of the long-term, fully dedicated members on this board.  And I think you are seeing some of that. 

I think you can judge the tree by its fruit, which in this context would include the members on this board.  I too disagree with the LDS Church on some things, but imo it DOES produce really good people, who (imo) sometimes evolve beyond where the mainstream LDS Church happens to be.  And imo their spiritual development is often due to their application of principles they were TAUGHT BY the LDS Church. 

Let me share with you a model of personal evolution I learned from psychiatrist Scott Peck, author of The Road Less Travelled and The Different Drum.  In the latter book he describes four stages of human spiritual development.  This will start out seeming like an irrelevant tangent but I think it may make sense in the end:

Peck noticed an unexpected pattern in his patients who stuck with the therapy process all the way through to completion:  If they started out as non-believers they tended to become believers; and if they started out as believers they tended to become non-believers!  He studied this in detail and concluded that there are four stages of human spiritual development.  Going by memory here:

Stage One:  Chaotic and anti-social.  This is the stage children almost always start out in, and about one in five adults are still in this stage.  They are lurching from one disaster to another.  What they need is structure and order, commandments to follow, rules to live by, and inclusion in a warm and supportive community.  They often find this in religion, in a 12-step program, on in some other solid institution such as the military.

Stage Two:  Formal and institutional.  In this stage the person is transformed and uplifted by the teachings and principles and fellowship of the community they join.  They thrive as they learn and follow the rules and take control over their behavior and their lives.  Their community is often somewhat exclusive, perhaps embracing something of an "us versus them" viewpoint, but this attribute serves to more reassuringly enfold and include them, and to all-the-more-highly value those within the group. 

Stage Three:  Skeptical and individual.  This is a lonely time.  The person starts to see disconnects between the highest values they have been taught and the actual practices of their group, and so they start to distance themselves from the mainstream.  They may leave and join another group, in hopes of finding what they are looking for.  They may leave and go it alone.  They may stay in their original group but will be aware that they don't really fit in.  In some cases they enter into open conflict with their original group, whether from within or without.

Stage Four:  Mystical and communal.  If the person does not get bogged down in a war against his original group, he starts to reconstruct his own belief system from first principles which he can be completely at peace with.  He starts to see through a far more inclusive lens than he did before.  He may have mystical experiences here and there which directly inform his beliefs.  He may return to full participation in his original group, perhaps even using the same terminology, but his beliefs will be based primarily on his own experiences rather than on following someone else's instructions.

Okay, now I'm going to try to tie it all together.

Imo the LDS Church is an excellent Stage Two religion.  It does a superb job of making bad people good, and of making good people better.  But it cannot be all things to all people, and it does not do a particularly good job of retaining its Stage Three members.  That being said, imo the LDS Church has a disproportionate number of Stage Four members, some of which you will find on this board.

Imo the official doctrines of the LDS Church tend to be those of a Stage Two religion.  They do not necessarily stand up to values-based skeptical inquiry, BUT imo there IS room in the LDS Church for its Stage Four members, who tend to be less concerned with the doctrinal details and more concerned with the light and love they see in the big picture. 

So @Potter, what I'm suggesting to you is, that there is a LOT more to the LDS "package deal" than what you see in the official positions given on church websites.  Mormonism in its full form really does offer a complete package, or as close to it as I'm aware of.  And imo some of the people you are encountering on this forum are evidence of that. 

Arguably one take-away from this is that, no matter where an individual happens to be, they are on the path of progression.  And just as the high school senior is not of greater merit or value than the first grader, the "further along the path" person is not of greater merit of value than the person who still has more of the journey yet ahead of them.

(I think I'm one of those Stage Three guys who has decided to "go it alone", just so you know where I'm coming from.)

This was really interesting, thanks for sharing.

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, JVW said:

I really don't believe that that is an issue that is at the top of the list for Christians who hate Mormons.

My experience is it is quite high for many Christians who see their baptism as a major sign of their discipleship.  It is to them if I understand correctly like denying they are actually Christians.

Perhaps we each have just encountered more nonLDS Christians from a different category of denominations.  I wouldn’t label most Christians I have engaged with as hating LDS either, even those who reject us as Christians and work to persuade people to leave our faith.  For those who had negative emotions, it was more distrust or at worst dislike rather than hate.  I am aware of some who actually hate, but even with some anti Mormons who made a professional living out of their anti Mormonism I wouldn’t describe them as going so far as to hate us.  Not friendly either.

But maybe I define “hate” differently than you do because I would couple hate with intentional maliciousness rather than view them as significantly different as it appears you do when you say there are few who are intentionally malicious towards LDS and our faith.

Edited January 24, 2025 by Calm