Prop 8. and temple recommends

[GaySaint]

Matthew: I think that depends on what you believe "sustain" to mean. If you think it is synonymous with "obey," then I suppose someone actively supporting same-sex marriage would not be eligible for a temple recommend (especially if the interviewer of said person views it this way), but I don't think that is what it means.

Sustain means to support, in my view, and I do believe it is possible for someone to support someone else, even if not necessarily agreeing with their point of view 110%.

Take me, for example. Let's say I decide to go back to church, and live a celibate life. Is there EVER a possibility of me NOT supporting same-sex marriage? Probably not. My own life experience has led me to see the importance of it for gay couples. Whether it is because I sympathize, or whatever, I simply cannot in good conscience vote to take away a couple's ability to protect their family.

Will that keep me from getting rebaptized? A temple recommend?

I'm sure it would depend on the bishop (and I've had some say yes and some say no) - but in my mind I can still sustain the church leadership without necessarily believing everything they say is revelation all of the time.

But I am curious on the thoughts of others on this subject.

[FunkyTown]

That's tricky, GS. I would say it would count as not sustaining the Prophet.

Let's take an example:

The Prophet has said that every new convert needs a calling, a friend, and nourishment by studying the gospel.

If a member simply didn't help a convert get a calling, ignored them as a whole and didn't nourish them(That's, sadly, fairly common for new converts to be forgotten), they could still get a temple recommend.

However, if someone actively said 'I disagree. I think no new convert should get a calling, I think no convert needs friends and I think no new convert should study the good word', then at that point you're actively taking the opposite stance that the Prophet have set.

However, and here's the caveat: If the Prophet has simply given his opinion on something, then you can continue to get a temple recommend. If the Prophet said 'I think you should wear the blue shirt' and you said 'I like the red instead' and put it on, you could still say you sustain the prophet and get a temple recommend.

One side of the marriage debate has a group of people feeling alienated and looked down upon, as if they are second class citizens for something most feel is a biological imperative. It's dehumanizing to feel that way. I can understand the rage on that side of the fence and it saddens me that people whom I no doubt loved in the pre-mortal existence feel that way.

The other side sees the death of a way of life, of a turning away from goodness by abandoning something vital to God's plan. They fear that allowing a single step down that road will result in people saying that we have to abandon our beliefs(Or those that might offend anyone). If we're honest, it's not a far-fetched fear, either. People on both sides have taken advantage of whatever they could to hurt the other side historically. It will continue to happen.

I look at this debate and I see no way it can end without tears. The only thing I can do is support what I think God would want me to.

Matthew: I think that depends on what you believe "sustain" to mean. If you think it is synonymous with "obey," then I suppose someone actively supporting same-sex marriage would not be eligible for a temple recommend (especially if the interviewer of said person views it this way), but I don't think that is what it means.

Sustain means to support, in my view, and I do believe it is possible for someone to support someone else, even if not necessarily agreeing with their point of view 110%.

Take me, for example. Let's say I decide to go back to church, and live a celibate life. Is there EVER a possibility of me NOT supporting same-sex marriage? Probably not. My own life experience has led me to see the importance of it for gay couples. Whether it is because I sympathize, or whatever, I simply cannot in good conscience vote to take away a couple's ability to protect their family.

Will that keep me from getting rebaptized? A temple recommend?

I'm sure it would depend on the bishop (and I've had some say yes and some say no) - but in my mind I can still sustain the church leadership without necessarily believing everything they say is revelation all of the time.

But I am curious on the thoughts of others on this subject.

[Guest]

Why do you feel you have to rebuke me when I am just defending my choice of words? I totally agree with everything you say in this post ... so, you didn't rebuke me one bit, if that's what you think you did. You can celebrate whatever you want, I never said you couldn't and I don't have any power or influence over you anyways if I did. You missed the point and are taking things out of context and focusing on words that obviously have different meaning for you than for me.

I was comparing the ordinance of baptism to baptisms not done with priesthood power and the sealing in the temple with other forms of marriage to say that there is a difference. If you want to tell me that the baptism without Priesthood authority is the same as with it and should be celebrated equally, go ahead, that is your right to do so. I disagree with that idea not as an "LDS" person but as one who believes in the actual power of God. If you want to call the belief in a higher power and authority, "snotty", it doesn't bother me at all, I've heard worse. And if you think that believing temple marriage is more powerful in it's earthly effects because of the covenant through the Priesthood power than any other form of marriage is "LDS snootiness" ... that's okay too, you aren't going to pull me down with that, I still think covenants add to this life, not just bind something in the future.

"I, the Lord am bound when ye do what I say, when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise." ... the Lord has told us to be baptized by those who have the proper authority, any other way carries no promise. ... but go ahead and call it the same and treat it the same and celebrate it the same, that's your right. to be consistent, I hope you celebrate me saying "praise Jesus" Praise Jesus! did you celebrate that? ... good, because who knows, that could be just as meaningful as a two day old getting baptized.

Semantics is a ridiculous argument. It can really sever relationships if not watched. I was once told that 60 to 70 percent of all arguments come from semantics. I want to even say more than that, but I cann't remember for 100 percent sure.

Anyways, I hope what was seen from both sides, was that there was a misunderstanding of words, at which there was offense taken. Ultimately, one or the other started to attack a principle of belief.

Love thy neighbor as thyself. Article of faith #11 We claim the privilege of worshiping almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience and allow all men this same privilege.(that is a bad/rough paraphrase)

I don't think the problem was in the misinterpreted words, but in the reactions to them, where some not very nice things were said. Things that attacked others beliefs. This will then put one on the defensive unless he or she realizes the reality of the 11th article of faith or the 1 amendment of the consitiution.

This puts us in a spirit of contention, of which the Lord counsels, teaches, warns, and denounces, and rebukes, and condemns: He who has the spirit of contention is of the devil.

Okay, I gave it a day before I revisited this thread.

No, I don't think we have a difference in semantics. At all. English may only be my 3rd language but I am pretty sure of this.

Seminary, the problem I see (which is a common occurrence among LDS folks that's why I call it my peeve) is this mindset that just because one is not LDS then he is on the "wrong path".

I never said that a Catholic baptism of a 2 day old is the same as an LDS baptism. If I believed that, then there wouldn't be a need for me to ask to be baptized LDS.

The spirit of this argument (if I can call it that) is this:

An LDS person says "I have a testimony that this Church is true and it is God's church on earth". This somehow becomes a some kind of caste system so that anybody who is in some other church are treated or looked upon as 2nd-class citizens. So the LDS person looks at this non-LDS undergoing his own personal spiritual journey and the LDS person shakes his head and says, "that's just wrong". That's where the celebrate/don't celebrate peeve of mine comes in.

Each spiritual journey is unique among us. When somebody is in all sincerity and honesty searching for the truth by all that they are and all they have, then it is to be celebrated. Not because we think he is "the same" as having the ordinances bestowed upon him by the proper authority, but because we see that he is progressing with eyes single to the glory of God.

We all know that Moroni's promise is not always fulfilled in everybody right after they read the BOM. This is not always for the lack of the desire to know the truth. The Holy Ghost testifies to everybody when they are ready. But the promise is true - everybody seeking sincerely for the truth will find it. Therefore, I can celebrate anybody's spiritual journey, wherever it leads them, if the desire to seek the truth is ever present. Because, I have complete trust and faith that they will find the truth. It may not be in the time that I want or expect or in the manner I find is "correct", but it will happen, and anything leading them closer to that truth gives me joy. And I celebrate it, not just commemorate it.

My parents are probably going to die Catholic. Am I going to be sad about it? No. My parents live their lives with eyes single to the Glory of God. They completely believe with all their hearts, minds, and strength that they are following the path to God's Kingdom. I have done my part in proclaiming the restored gospel to them. They pray for my "salvation". I pray for theirs too. I don't know why Moroni's promise is not fulfilled in them yet. But, I have faith that because of their diligence in seeking truth, that they will find it - if not in this life, then the next. God will judge them for what they know to be true. I have heard countless times in fast and testimony meetings, even spoken by the youth, how bad being a Catholic is. This is the source of my peeve.

Why this is relevant to GS: It is easy for us, LDS folks, to reject GS spiritual journey. Especially if we don't know him good enough. But that is being snooty in our "we are right" judgementalism. Because, for everything that I know of GS, every decision he makes is single to the glory of God. And I can celebrate that even when I consider his relationship with his partner as not in line with God's commandments. He has his cross to bear and so do every one of us. He is working towards his spiritual progression the best way he knows how with what he is given with the cross he bears.

This is completely different from somebody who knows which path he has to follow yet goes the other way because he doesn't want to pick up the cross. I probably will not celebrate his choices but I would celebrate his path towards repentance.

We are not the judges. We are here to proclaim His Word and to uplift each other... not just LDS folks... everyone.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Okay, I gave it a day before I revisited this thread.

No, I don't think we have a difference in semantics. At all. English may only be my 3rd language but I am pretty sure of this.

Seminary, the problem I see (which is a common occurrence among LDS folks that's why I call it my peeve) is this mindset that just because one is not LDS then he is on the "wrong path".

I never said that a Catholic baptism of a 2 day old is the same as an LDS baptism. If I believed that, then there wouldn't be a need for me to ask to be baptized LDS.

The spirit of this argument (if I can call it that) is this:

An LDS person says "I have a testimony that this Church is true and it is God's church on earth". This somehow becomes a some kind of caste system so that anybody who is in some other church are treated or looked upon as 2nd-class citizens. So the LDS person looks at this non-LDS undergoing his own personal spiritual journey and the LDS person shakes his head and says, "that's just wrong". That's where the celebrate/don't celebrate peeve of mine comes in.

Each spiritual journey is unique among us. When somebody is in all sincerity and honesty searching for the truth by all that they are and all they have, then it is to be celebrated. Not because we think he is "the same" as having the ordinances bestowed upon him by the proper authority, but because we see that he is progressing with eyes single to the glory of God.

We all know that Moroni's promise is not always fulfilled in everybody right after they read the BOM. This is not always for the lack of the desire to know the truth. The Holy Ghost testifies to everybody when they are ready. But the promise is true - everybody seeking sincerely for the truth will find it. Therefore, I can celebrate anybody's spiritual journey, wherever it leads them, if the desire to seek the truth is ever present. Because, I have complete trust and faith that they will find the truth. It may not be in the time that I want or expect or in the manner I find is "correct", but it will happen, and anything leading them closer to that truth gives me joy. And I celebrate it, not just commemorate it.

My parents are probably going to die Catholic. Am I going to be sad about it? No. My parents live their lives with eyes single to the Glory of God. They completely believe with all their hearts, minds, and strength that they are following the path to God's Kingdom. I have done my part in proclaiming the restored gospel to them. They pray for my "salvation". I pray for theirs too. I don't know why Moroni's promise is not fulfilled in them yet. But, I have faith that because of their diligence in seeking truth, that they will find it - if not in this life, then the next. God will judge them for what they know to be true. I have heard countless times in fast and testimony meetings, even spoken by the youth, how bad being a Catholic is. This is the source of my peeve.

Why this is relevant to GS: It is easy for us, LDS folks, to reject GS spiritual journey. Especially if we don't know him good enough. But that is being snooty in our "we are right" judgementalism. Because, for everything that I know of GS, every decision he makes is single to the glory of God. And I can celebrate that even when I consider his relationship with his partner as not in line with God's commandments. He has his cross to bear and so do every one of us. He is working towards his spiritual progression the best way he knows how with what he is given with the cross he bears.

This is completely different from somebody who knows which path he has to follow yet goes the other way because he doesn't want to pick up the cross. I probably will not celebrate his choices but I would celebrate his path towards repentance.

We are not the judges. We are here to proclaim His Word and to uplift each other... not just LDS folks... everyone.

This is a very hypocritical statement. You strongly stated that "we are not the judges" with which I agree and even stated in my posts too. If you truly believe that (I think you do, but it is one sided) then you also cannot celebrate. To "celebrate" is a judgment that what that person is doing is a step in the right direction. We are not speaking of their intentions, at least I wasn't. I wouldn't even come close to saying that I knew what another person's intentions were, to me that is judging. If you somehow know every time what a person's intentions and understanding is about their choices in life, than more power to you.

In an LDS baptism, for example, at the moment of the baptism and as a result of that baptism there is something worth celebrating, their sins have been washed and they have become members of the church, falling under the covenant and it is made possible to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, regardless of judging their intentions. There is no judgment of that individual or what she is doing and I can celebrate the event because it is a step towards God's goal of bringing to pass the immortality and Eternal Life of man, for sure.

Whereas, if someone is baptized without the proper authority, they have not entered under a covenant with God, their sins were not washed, they did make themselves eligible for receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. So, what are you celebrating? You are celebrating their intention for spiritual progression or repentance. Wonderful! I think that is great but that is no different than before or after the event, their intention is the same, even if you somehow know how to see peoples intentions. You can celebrate that without them going through some ceremony.

My peeve (not really, I am just saying it cause you said it) is when people try to belittle what happens in the temple or at the baptismal font as if it is the same thing as what happens in any religion. Go ahead and celebrate those other baptisms and marriages etc, but I would make sure to celebrate even more for the real thing. ... or you can celebrate them the same as if they are equal, that is your choice.

I also, don't appreciate you characterizing my argument as; "the LDS person shakes his head and says, "that's just wrong". That's where the celebrate/don't celebrate peeve of mine comes in." That is very judgmental. I never said anything of the sort, nor implied that. That is your judgmental inflation of what I said, pretending to know my intentions and my heart or even the heart of the numerous LDS people you've developed this "peeve" over. Shame on you for that!

I really do not know how you and nobody else I know in this world can judge the intentions of another that well; "This is completely different from somebody who knows which path he has to follow yet goes the other way because he doesn't want to pick up the cross. I probably will not celebrate his choices but I would celebrate his path towards repentance." ...That to me, seems very hypocritical and snooty, to say that you have the ability to know what that person wants to do or doesn't want to do. The priesthood interview before the baptism has the power to do that but if you think you can then I do not know that religion.

This discussion reminds me of when my son played recreation soccer and everyone got a medal at the end of the year and everyone cheered, good job (even though they lost most of their games). And then he moved on to competition soccer and only the teams that won would get medals. Several years he didn't get any medal at the end of the season but the few he did from competition soccer are sitting on his desk, the other ones from rec teams are in a box in storage somewhere. The rec team medals didn't really represent any achievement at all and he didn't see that until he got the competition medal. That isn't to say that the rec team years were useless, they were very valuable, and we cheered for that. But the rec team medal and the competition medals have different meanings.

I'll cheer for everyone's spiritual progression right now! Go brothers and sisters, keep progressing! Since I don't know who that is, whoever you are, God knows, good job! .... So, don't tell me I didn't celebrate their spiritual progression without even knowing if they did or not because I just did it. ... and one other thing, no child left behind! yeah! maybe God will take that same approach if we ask Him and not grade us on anything we do here .... oh wait, that was Satan's plan, sorry.

Edited August 13, 2010 by Seminarysnoozer

[Seminarysnoozer]

Seminary: Perhaps 'celebrate' was the wrong word, or perhaps I would be 'celebrating' something else, like it has been said, 'celebrating' someone's desire to take steps to become closer to Christ, while 'commemorating' the actual baptism, for example.

I guess I used 'celebrate' because I remember being young, and going to a Catholic event for a member of my family, and having a big party afterward. The party was a 'celebration' - so 'celebrate' was just the first word to pop into my head.

But I do think someone can celebrate the intent, while disagreeing with an action - sure. Baptism in another faith would be just one example. Celebrating a same-sex couple's happiness while disagreeing with what they do in the bedroom could be another.

I never meant to correlate celebration with acceptance. In fact, I think my point was to prove the opposite…

Thanks, I somehow skipped over this post. I agree with celebrating apparent intent which is easier to spot when it is in the same direction your own testimony suggests. I also applaud you for putting up with what some may think are hard words. Maybe 'rejoice' is a stronger word than 'celebrate', I don't know. Thanks for your posts.

[GaySaint]

Seminary: I think you and Anatess are sort of saying the same thing, just either not understanding each other or letting emotions run wild. You said you would celebrate a baptism because it "is a step towards God's goal of bringing to pass the immortality and Eternal Life of man." I think Anatess is saying the same thing - she is saying that a baptism in another faith (or any sort of outward showing of a commitment to God) is also a step towards God's goal of bringing to pass the immortality and Eternal Life of man - even if that step is just one that is preparatory to the "correct" step.

Anatess is saying that there may be many preparatory steps that God leads someone through in life before they can be ready to make covenants with priesthood authority. Some people may not be ready even in this life, but every preparatory step that leads them closer to God is a good thing.

As a member of the church, I never understood how we made people feel like outsiders. Now, as an outsider, I'm often shocked how easy it is for some members of the church to put people into "us" or "them" categories. I never thought it happened because I was always one of the "us" group.

I really do get both points of view, and I think you are both right... but Anatess is approaching the subject as someone who has been outside of the church, and you are approaching the subject as someone who has never been outside of the church. But I think everyone can agree that we have all taken preparatory steps, and can hopefully see how much good those steps have done for us in our lives.

Does that help, or make things worse?

[GaySaint]

I suddenly have Saturday's Warrior running through my head:

"Line upon line, precept on precept..."

[GDKT]

This is a touchy subject. I understand people's viewpoints on how honest people in different churches are able to slowly progress along their spiritual journey, but what are these other churches? Aren't they even more dangerous than the devil worshippers? They lead people to believe they are in the truth and doing the right thing, when in fact they are not. I know many wonderful people, born and raised catholics, who baptize their infants--a practice that we know is "an evil abomination" to quote Mormon.

Remember, there are only 2 churches. The church of Jesus Christ, and the church of the devil. Just because the devil can imitate the gifts of the spirit and even perform miracles (here's looking at you, pharoah) doesn't mean it's progression in the right direction or something we should celebrate.

Again--it's a really tough situation. You want to help your friends/family but at the same time don't want to run the risk of having them become more deceived by the institutions man has created on this earth--because they will stay on this earth after death.

[Matthew0059]

Matthew: I think that depends on what you believe "sustain" to mean. If you think it is synonymous with "obey," then I suppose someone actively supporting same-sex marriage would not be eligible for a temple recommend (especially if the interviewer of said person views it this way), but I don't think that is what it means.

I do view "sustain", in this context, to be synonymous to "obey". If we 'sustain' a man as prophet, seer, and revelator given direction by CHRIST, and we believe CHRIST to be the Messiah- then we cannot actively oppose the strict teachings of the prophets without being in open rebellion against Messiah. When we are in open rebellion against CHRIST, we are not worthy to enter HIS house.

As for individual cases and deciding where the "line" is drawn between disagreeing and disobeying, I think you got it right when you said:

I'm sure it would depend on the bishop

As the common judge in Israel, they are given the keys to understand the indiviudal's needs and personal worthiness.

[Matthew0059]

This is a touchy subject. I understand people's viewpoints on how honest people in different churches are able to slowly progress along their spiritual journey, but what are these other churches? Aren't they even more dangerous than the devil worshippers? They lead people to believe they are in the truth and doing the right thing, when in fact they are not. I know many wonderful people, born and raised catholics, who baptize their infants--a practice that we know is "an evil abomination" to quote Mormon.

GDKT, I disagree that anyone belonging to any denomination that is not LDS is "more dangerous than the devil worshippers". I understand your point re: disguising lies as truth, but remember that the LORD said, in Doctrine and Covenants 123:12:

12 For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it—

There are leaders and followers of other denominations and religions that will accept the true Gospel when they hear it. These individuals are not nearly as bad as those openly worshipping the spirit of rebellion and pride that Satan embodies (i.e., "devil worshippers").

[GaySaint]

How do you guys reconcile the Bible story where Christ says "For he that is not against us is for us" (Mark 9:40) with the idea that all other churches are of the devil?

I don't think I ever reconciled this myself.

Does that mean that in regards to Prop 8, the church got into bed with the devil by forming a coalition with the Catholic and Christian churches?

[GDKT]

but what are these other churches? Aren't they even more dangerous than the devil worshippers?

GDKT, I disagree that anyone belonging to any denomination that is not LDS is "more dangerous than the devil worshippers". I understand your point re: disguising lies as truth, but remember that the LORD said, in Doctrine and Covenants 123:12:

There are leaders and followers of other denominations and religions that will accept the true Gospel when they hear it. These individuals are not nearly as bad as those openly worshipping the spirit of rebellion and pride that Satan embodies (i.e., "devil worshippers").

Matthew, do you realize you completely switched around the subjects of my sentences? That isn't very fair.

I questioned if the CHURCHES were more dangerous than the devil worshippers (as a figure of speach, I might add). I did not say that the decent people belong to those churches are more dangerous than devil worshippers. Please try and be fair with my statements or read them more carefully next time.

[Justice]

I think we can "celebrate" the acheivements of others without condoning or agreeing with what they are doing.

Celebrate is probably the wrong word to use here. Support may be better.

I don't think anyone disagrees with this. I think what some are expressing is that we may appear to condone others in their wrong doing if we support them. I think if what they are doing is wrong then we can lovingly tell them so, while we love them.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Seminary: I think you and Anatess are sort of saying the same thing, just either not understanding each other or letting emotions run wild. You said you would celebrate a baptism because it "is a step towards God's goal of bringing to pass the immortality and Eternal Life of man." I think Anatess is saying the same thing - she is saying that a baptism in another faith (or any sort of outward showing of a commitment to God) is also a step towards God's goal of bringing to pass the immortality and Eternal Life of man - even if that step is just one that is preparatory to the "correct" step.

Anatess is saying that there may be many preparatory steps that God leads someone through in life before they can be ready to make covenants with priesthood authority. Some people may not be ready even in this life, but every preparatory step that leads them closer to God is a good thing.

As a member of the church, I never understood how we made people feel like outsiders. Now, as an outsider, I'm often shocked how easy it is for some members of the church to put people into "us" or "them" categories. I never thought it happened because I was always one of the "us" group.

I really do get both points of view, and I think you are both right... but Anatess is approaching the subject as someone who has been outside of the church, and you are approaching the subject as someone who has never been outside of the church. But I think everyone can agree that we have all taken preparatory steps, and can hopefully see how much good those steps have done for us in our lives.

Does that help, or make things worse?

It helps me understand where she is coming from. I was under the impression she was a member of the church, if she is not then I see where the difficulty is. LDS use the word covenant different than most, that I can see.

Like I said previously, I think there are preparatory steps to even find the path but then once on the path it is narrow and straight. Once on the path to Exaltation, it is only one. I think that should be clarified because without it the restoration of the Priesthood and the keys of the Priesthood mean nothing, we could have kept going on the path without the Priesthood.

I think the paths are many that can lead to finding the straight and narrow and Yeah! when we find it. But if the iron rod isn't found, they are still in the fog. You are a good mediator.

Maybe a bad metaphor but I'll throw it out there ... Attending grade school is necessary to become a doctor and so one could say it is a step to becoming a doctor (or Lawyer or any other profession that requires advanced degree training). But not everyone that attends grade school will become a doctor. So, as the student graduates from each grade school year we don't celebrate it as if it is a step towards becoming a doctor, we just celebrate it for what it is, which is learning and graduating from that year of school. It is a positive step but may not result in becoming a doctor. The grade school graduation celebration would be different than graduating from the first year of medical school, or the second if the goal was to become a doctor. Those steps can be specifically celebrated as a direct step towards becoming a doctor.

Likewise, (again, maybe a bad metaphor, I'm trying) covenants in the church are direct steps toward becoming like our Heavenly Father, they are not only direct steps but necessary steps.

[GaySaint]

Seminary: She is a member NOW, which is why she agrees with you about the importance of covenants - but she still remembers when she wasn't a member, and with that life experience can look back and see how the Lord guided her steps so that she would be ready when the it was time for her to make the covenant.

And no doubt she still values those baby steps.

To pose an example to you: The endowment is a necessary covenant for exaltation, but we don't just give it to anyone and everyone as they walk through the church door. The steps you take to prepare for the covenant may not be as important as the covenant itself, but could still be... ahem... "celebrated."

So, likewise, being committed to another faith CAN (and we are taught WILL), lead people to be ready to be committed to Christ.

Anatess: If I'm misrepresenting you here in anyway please feel free to chime in

[Melissa569]

Clicked the wrong reply int he wrong thread... No delete button...

Edited August 14, 2010 by Melissa569

[Matthew0059]

but what are these other churches? Aren't they even more dangerous than the devil worshippers?

Matthew, do you realize you completely switched around the subjects of my sentences? That isn't very fair.

I questioned if the CHURCHES were more dangerous than the devil worshippers (as a figure of speach, I might add). I did not say that the decent people belong to those churches are more dangerous than devil worshippers. Please try and be fair with my statements or read them more carefully next time.

I'm sorry- I was a bit tired. Your use of "devil worshippers" confused me a little, and I confused people with religious systems.

I'd still say that, as of right now, non-LDS religions are (usually) much better than straight devil-worship. If a church is based off of the teachings of Moses and named after Moses it will be Moses' church (same for Martin Luther, John Calvin, the Buddha, etc.) and thus not contain correct doctrine- yet they can still be far better than a church that worships Satan outright. Will those religions survive the coming apocalypse? No- they are based on sandy foundations. Yet they can still point to many more good things than devil worship does.

[Matthew0059]

How do you guys reconcile the Bible story where Christ says "For he that is not against us is for us" (Mark 9:40) with the idea that all other churches are of the devil?

CHRIST'S advice is given as instruction pertaining to what the apostles should do in relation to other sects and religions. John had just related to JESUS how he and other apostles saw a man "casting out devils in [CHRIST'S] name", and they "forbad him, because he follow[ed] not [them]" (Mark 9:38). CHRIST instructed them not to interfere with the man. Ever person will eventually come unto CHRIST or refuse HIM- all that come unti HIM will have done good works of their own power along the way, having believed the prophets and apostles. CHRIST will in no wise reject such good works, because although done in ignorance of the full Gospel, they were done in faith on HIS name.

Remember that CHRIST also said "[h]e that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad."

Also:

From the Bible Dictionary entry for Devil:

"The English word devil in the KJV is used to represent... [the Hebrew word for] spoiler." (Emphasis mine)

There is not a single religion on the earth (except for the LDS Church) that has not been spoiled by the devil or man- and even an unenlightened good person's wisdom is spoiled by our fallen state, and the learning of the society he grew up in. We can trace all instances of spoil or evil in society to Satan's influence somewhere in history.

Therefore, anything that has been spoiled is spoiled by Satan and his minions- all religious systems are tainted by imperfection and spoil.

[Guest]

It helps me understand where she is coming from. I was under the impression she was a member of the church, if she is not then I see where the difficulty is. LDS use the word covenant different than most, that I can see.

Like I said previously, I think there are preparatory steps to even find the path but then once on the path it is narrow and straight. Once on the path to Exaltation, it is only one. I think that should be clarified because without it the restoration of the Priesthood and the keys of the Priesthood mean nothing, we could have kept going on the path without the Priesthood.

I think the paths are many that can lead to finding the straight and narrow and Yeah! when we find it. But if the iron rod isn't found, they are still in the fog. You are a good mediator.

Maybe a bad metaphor but I'll throw it out there ... Attending grade school is necessary to become a doctor and so one could say it is a step to becoming a doctor (or Lawyer or any other profession that requires advanced degree training). But not everyone that attends grade school will become a doctor. So, as the student graduates from each grade school year we don't celebrate it as if it is a step towards becoming a doctor, we just celebrate it for what it is, which is learning and graduating from that year of school. It is a positive step but may not result in becoming a doctor. The grade school graduation celebration would be different than graduating from the first year of medical school, or the second if the goal was to become a doctor. Those steps can be specifically celebrated as a direct step towards becoming a doctor.

Likewise, (again, maybe a bad metaphor, I'm trying) covenants in the church are direct steps toward becoming like our Heavenly Father, they are not only direct steps but necessary steps.

Seminary: She is a member NOW, which is why she agrees with you about the importance of covenants - but she still remembers when she wasn't a member, and with that life experience can look back and see how the Lord guided her steps so that she would be ready when the it was time for her to make the covenant.

And no doubt she still values those baby steps.

To pose an example to you: The endowment is a necessary covenant for exaltation, but we don't just give it to anyone and everyone as they walk through the church door. The steps you take to prepare for the covenant may not be as important as the covenant itself, but could still be... ahem... "celebrated."

So, likewise, being committed to another faith CAN (and we are taught WILL), lead people to be ready to be committed to Christ.

Anatess: If I'm misrepresenting you here in anyway please feel free to chime in

GS! You rock, man! You did a much better job of explaining my side than I could!

Seminary, I think you get what I'm saying now. Your analogy of the educational steps to becoming a doctor is EXACTLY what I'm trying to say and is a perfect example. The soccer one is not at all what I'm trying to say.

I don't know how it is done in American families, but in my Filipino family, each "graduation" is a GIANT celebration. So, it is kinda funny sometimes when we talk about some cousin who we had a giant high-school graduation celebration and they end up dropping out of college and working at minimum-wage jobs. It doesn't diminish the high-school graduation, it just makes us wish he could have done something more with that diploma.

My brother, he is a neurologist now. So, first we celebrated his Kindergaten graduation, then we celebrated his elementary school graduation, then we celebrated his high-school graduation... Now, when I say celebrated, I mean like giant party with open house invitation to everyone who knows him with my parents spending oodles of money on it and everybody giving gifts and stuff and my parents strutting like peacocks for how proud they are for his accomplishments. Then he graduated from college (5 years pre-med) and we had a celebration again.

Now, for all the other kids (me included), that was it for educational celebrations. I graduated from college, we had a party and I was done.

But, my brother went to school again for 5 years and graduated... again. We had a super GIANT celebration then, because he can finally put an M.D. after his name. We thought that was it. All his friends and all our cousins were super proud of his M.D. and everything. My dad thought he can finally stop paying college tuition.

But no, he went back to school some more. 3 more years of scraping two pennies together. And then he graduated AGAIN... as a neurologist this time. We were pretty much out of celebratory fuel at this point but we still persevered and had a party. My dad's speech during the celebration said, "I promise you, this is truly IT..." then he looks to my brother, "... right?".

So, I kinda see my meager Bachelor's Degree as the "Catholic" version of spiritual achievement while my brother's super-PHD as the "LDS" version of spiritual achievement. We all celebrated each and every step of our achievements - since Kindergarten - it is just that my brother had a lot more to celebrate whereas, I quit at BS stage.

But, my BS degree is the thing I thought was the best spiritual achievement. It was my goal. I was headed there and got it! I was very happy about that and my brother cannot tell me I'm on the wrong path even if he sees I have potential to have become a doctor if I would have chosen that path instead.

Granted, we both have comfortable lives and is happy with what we have. But, my brother has a lot more to be happy about - especially now that my parents are older and are starting to have medical issues. I really don't have the capacity to help my parents whereas he has all the tools at his disposal to help them in the best possible way. I wish I would have gone to med school! But, I didn't. So, I try to help the best way I can.

This is like being LDS. Being LDS gives you the power, not only to help yourself gain exaltation, but to help others gain exaltation as well - especially those who have passed on. Being Catholic - yes, you are doing alright, you are following Jesus' examples, living a good spiritual life, but it is like my BS degree. There is more yet to achieve.

But, I still celebrate our progression from Kindergarten all the way to college...

By the way, on that "wrong path"... that was a direct quote. I don't have much time to look for it but it is mentioned on this particular thread (is why I went full-steam-ahead with my rant)... but may not be by you.

Edited August 16, 2010 by anatess