The "Only true and living church" vs "The most correct of any church".

[CommanderSouth]

On truth, Brigham Young is quoted as saying:
 

Quote

Mormonism,” so-called, embraces every principle pertaining to life and salvation, for time and eternity. No matter who has it. If the infidel has got truth it belongs to “Mormonism.” The truth and sound doctrine possessed by the sectarian world, and they have a great deal, all belong to this Church.

As a protestant, for many of my 14 years of membership, I focused more on being the "Only true and living church" and not the above.  I have found it useful to shift my perspective to the idea that the church is the "Most correct" of any church on Earth.  While all truth is "Mormonism", it emphatically DOES NOT follow that "Mormonism" is all truth.  I just watched a reaction video to the Mormon Stories video interviewing the Mississippi bishop who resigned from the pulpit.  He honestly spoke about how he viewed those outside the church as "not worth his time" and that only members were "celestial material".  To me, this is obviously a failure on his part for gross misunderstanding.  But perhaps we could focus a BIT more on the "most correct" and less on the "only true".

You obviously need both, but it seems some have the balance WAY off, even those in "leadership" positions.

[mikbone]

The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS is the only church with the true priesthood and living ordinances.

It obviously has not cornered the market on truth, or righteousness though.

[CommanderSouth]

7 minutes ago, mikbone said:

The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS is the only church with the true priesthood and living ordinances.

It obviously has not cornered the market on truth, or righteousness though.

Of course.  Though I wonder if even that is WHOLLY true.  If there are not edge cases where the law is applied differently to others, that is to say, if someone claims they read the BoM and received a prompting not to come to the church, I don't question it, I may tell them to be certain, and make sure, but then I have to have faith in God and the person.  BUT, I'm not willing to wager my eternity on an exception.  I'm just not willing to rule any out, you know, being a fallible mortal .  I bring myself to "What is that to thee?  Follow thou me."  I do what the spirit tells me, I don't deny the experiences of others, even if I don't agree or understand them.

[mikbone]

My stewardship is over myself, my spouse and our children at home.

None of my children have dared to explain to me how the spirit had prompted them to avoid church services.

And if that did hypothetically happen, I’m sure that it would not go over well.

Adult children can do as they wish though.  One of my sons left the church (served as an AP on his mission too).  I gave him some counsel but he is grown man and can do as he wishes.  D&C 121:37

Edited February 7 by mikbone

[zil2]

1 hour ago, CommanderSouth said:

shift my perspective to the idea that the church is the "Most correct" of any church on Earth

Shift it back, brother.  Here's what the Lord himself said:

Quote

D&C 1:1 Hearken, O ye people of my church, saith the voice of him who dwells on high, and whose eyes are upon all men; yea, verily I say: Hearken ye people from afar; and ye that are upon the islands of the sea, listen together.

30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually

The Lord himself "wrote" this section of the D&C, so let's not suggest that Jesus Christ did not know what he was talking about.

1 hour ago, CommanderSouth said:

While all truth is "Mormonism", it emphatically DOES NOT follow that "Mormonism" is all truth.

Don't know any sane person who suggested otherwise.  Even God didn't do that:

Quote

D&C 88:78 Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand;

79 Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms

118 And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.

D&C 90:15 And set in order the churches, and study and learn, and become acquainted with all good books, and with languages, tongues, and people.

D&C 93:53 And, verily I say unto you, that it is my will that you should hasten to translate my scriptures, and to obtain a knowledge of history, and of countries, and of kingdoms, of laws of God and man, and all this for the salvation of Zion. Amen.

Clearly the Lord expects us to seek out learning from wherever we can find it (as well as from him).

43 minutes ago, CommanderSouth said:

Though I wonder if even that is WHOLLY true.

Yes, it is wholly true that:

54 minutes ago, mikbone said:

The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS is the only church with the true priesthood and living ordinances.

No other church on the earth has the Priesthood of Jesus Christ, nor his ordinances and covenants.

44 minutes ago, CommanderSouth said:

if someone claims they read the BoM and received a prompting not to come to the church, I don't question it

I submit that this person didn't follow the instructions (or see my text below the link):

Some of us don't want the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, some of us aren't ready for it yet or like to do things the hard way (and maybe need to experience evil longer before we can recognize the good), and some of us love Satan more than God.  (And whatever other combination of variables I'm not thinking of.)

Jesus Christ does not send people (other than Satan and his minions) away, ever.

Quote

3 Nephi 18:25 And ye see that I have commanded that none of you should go away, but rather have commanded that ye should come unto me, that ye might feel and see; even so shall ye do unto the world; and whosoever breaketh this commandment suffereth himself to be led into temptation.

...

30 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out from among you, but ye shall minister unto him and shall pray for him unto the Father, in my name; and if it so be that he repenteth and is baptized in my name, then shall ye receive him, and shall minister unto him of my flesh and blood.

...

32 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out of your synagogues, or your places of worship, for unto such shall ye continue to minister; for ye know not but what they will return and repent, and come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I shall heal them; and ye shall be the means of bringing salvation unto them.

(Explicit verses above, but the scripture are full of little else than Christ inviting people to come unto him.  He will let them come as far and via whatever convoluted or tortured path they choose, but they are always invited to come fully unto him, and that path is not complete until one has entered into the House of the Lord, received ordinances, made covenants, and then kept those covenants to the end.)

[CommanderSouth]

I want to be clear that I am not trying to say that I think we aren't the "only true and living church" and that you can ignore the ordinances.  If it sounded as such, then I was not clear enough.

Also nice call back to someone talking right to me  

That being said, I am not advocating abandoning the exclusivity of "only true" for the inclusivity of "most correct".  I am simply saying that both can be true.  Our truth doesn't negate the good intent of other churches. You said you "Don't know any sane person who suggested otherwise." with regards to Mormonism being "all truth".  I am saying that others, including the bishop in Mississippi who resigned, and to an extent, younger versions of myself, held the idea that all of the other churches are "abominable" and not celestial.  The bishop made the mistake of thinking it meant those people were beneath him, I just had trouble reconciling the seeming good will of other Christians and the exclusivity of the celestial kingdom (insofar as that you have to have ordinances done by those having authority).

All I have postulated is that PERHAPS the priesthood and effective ordinances we perform aren't the eternal truth in question, but a pointer to one.  There are logic trains I can use to justify this, but that wasn't the point I wanted to make.  I was just saying, if I can't reconcile why my mother hasn't joined the church when she loves God more than anyone I know, I'm not willing to simply say she "doesn't know" or "doesn't want to".  I accept it could be either of those, but I also am simply ceding "God's mercy" as an option.  It's the same with everyone else outside the church.  Why would God be so exclusive if he has such power.  There are only 2 options, he DOESN'T have the power, or he WILL be inclusive, and I just don't understand how.

This is all to say, if God can do something for someone else, I have faith he will.  I don't recommend betting your existence on it.  So I don't condone rebellion.  If God tells you to do something, do it.  But if I find out late the ordinances I was doing were only a reflection of something "eternal" and not the ordinance itself, I'm not going to worry about it.

When I found out the temple rituals were Masonic adjacent (if not wholly lifted) I cared exactly 0%, in fact, I applaud it, it makes sense.  The endowment is covenants, what a beautiful, liturgical, way to apply them.  I'm simply saying that if I found out that the ordinances and what not were meant to convey something MORE than just what they mean on the surface, and the MORE part is what is efficacious, then I would not be upset.  Again, thinking that this somehow allows you to ignore it, in the off chance that IT in and of itself isn't what "saves" you, you are playing Russian Roulette with your soul.  If God tells you to do it (and he has given US this "law") THEN DO IT.

In this way, I think for some it might be more appropriate to focus on the "most correct" side when "only true" starts giving trouble.  You can't abandon one OR the other. 

Edited February 7 by CommanderSouth

[zil2]

3 minutes ago, CommanderSouth said:

Our truth doesn't negate the good intent of other churches.

Nor their good works.

4 minutes ago, CommanderSouth said:

I am saying that others, including the bishop in Mississippi who resigned, and to an extent, younger versions of myself, held the idea that all of the other churches are "abominable" and not celestial.  The bishop made the mistake of thinking it meant those people were beneath him, I just had trouble reconciling the seeming good will of other Christians and the exclusivity of the celestial kingdom (insofar as that you have to have ordinances done by those having authority).

OK.  We are all foolish and ignorant in various ways and at various times.  We should not mistake the flaws and limitations of the members of the Church for the restored gospel and Church of Jesus Christ.

FTR, those other churches aren't "celestial" (how can they be without the ordinances that lead to exaltation?) - they seem to be teaching things that are terrestrial in nature.  As far as I can recall, it's only their creeds God has labeled abomination.  (Klaw is on the verge of declaring my typing an abomination, which, if not stopped, will reap desolation, or a least a firm biting on the arm.)  Don't forget that we have the entire rest of time through the end of the Millennium to gather Israel and provide those "exclusive" celestial ordinances to all who will receive them.

12 minutes ago, CommanderSouth said:

All I have postulated is that PERHAPS the priesthood and effective ordinances we perform aren't the eternal truth in question, but a pointer to one.

Just as the law of Moses was to prepare a people to receive the Lord at his first coming, so too, I expect, the laws, ordinances, and covenants of Christ's Church are to prepare a people to receive him at his Second Coming.  I would expect us to be blessed with more commandments and possibly more covenants during the Millennium.  The pointer is always to Christ and through him to exaltation in the kingdom of God in heaven - celestial glory (whatever that means).  That others may feel or find their way closer without the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in their mortal lives does not mean they can make it all the way without the ordinances decreed by God - were that the case, we would not be doing proxy work in our temples.

17 minutes ago, CommanderSouth said:

I was just saying, if I can't reconcile why my mother hasn't joined the church when she loves God more than anyone I know, I'm not willing to simply say she "doesn't know" or "doesn't want to".  I accept it could be either of those, but I also am simply ceding "God's mercy" as an option.  It's the same with everyone else outside the church.  Why would God be so exclusive if he has such power.  There are only 2 options, he DOESN'T have the power, or he WILL be inclusive, and I just don't understand how.

It isn't God being exclusive, it's his children using their agency and free will to choose for themselves the eternity they want - the laws they are willing to abide.  (See your other thread! )  Jesus Christ will not turn away anyone who comes to him.  He will lead them as far as they're willing to go.  In my experience, he is the very definition of patient and merciful.  Just because someone hasn't received the witness of the Spirit regarding the restored Gospel at this moment, that does not mean we can or should give up on them, nor that God has, nor that they will not eventually find their way into the required covenants and ordinances.  (To think otherwise would be to exercise judgement which is God's alone.  Check out this GC talk from last October.)

[CommanderSouth]

14 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Jesus Christ will not turn away anyone who comes to him.  He will lead them as far as they're willing to go.

This is a major pillar of my testimony.  Our vision of a God who doesn't condemn ANYONE, AT ALL (in the eternal damnation sense, he hates sin, to be sure).  In fact everyone's eternity is spent as close to him as THEY allow themselves to be.  And it is truly their choice, because the little bit that chooses in their core, however you word it, has always existed, and has always done, and always WILL do, exactly what it wants.

Something something horse to water...  

Edited February 7 by CommanderSouth

[zil2]

1 minute ago, CommanderSouth said:

Our vision of a God who doesn't condemn ANYONE, AT ALL (in the eternal damnation sense, he hates sin, to be sure).

The rest of the Christian world can spend their time memorizing John 3:16, I prefer verse 17:

Quote

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

But don't let Satan lull you into believing the condemnation won't come eventually.  It's just that now is not the time for it.  The end of the Millennium is the time for it.

3 minutes ago, CommanderSouth said:

Something something hore to water...  

Say what!?

[CommanderSouth]

1 minute ago, zil2 said:

Say what!?

HORSE!  HORSE!!! (*fixes post*)

[Anddenex]

9 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

You obviously need both, but it seems some have the balance WAY off, even those in "leadership" positions.

I think this is a great question. I think these type of questions allow us to ponder truth a little more as we seek further light and knowledge. I would take a different approach and simply say focus on these aspects within their sphere of truth. I really like this teaching in the Doctrine and Covenants where it teaches us the following, "All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence." (emphasis mine)

Let's review this independent truth, "the only true Church." This is a very important truth that shouldn't be replaced by the "most correct," which is pointing toward the Book of Mormon in reference to other scripture (Holy Bible). Within its independent sphere of truth it should never be compromised to "most correct." There is no other way back to the Father, except through Christ and his Church. If we were to solely focus on "most correct", then it could lead some to remove themselves from the Church because it may be the most correct but there are still other paths that are correct. This would result with some members making a choice to follow a forbidden path, letting go of the iron rod.

As truth is a sphere, independent, spheres of truth are also interwoven with each other. Remember, we believe the "restored" Church of Jesus Christ, and as President Nelson has made clear that restoration is still very much occurring. This is also taught in our Article of Faith #9. We believe that God will continue to reveal truth to his Church. This revelation may result from another church's teachings. This is why I find Mason theory from anti-Church individuals to be humorous. If the Lord preserved a "truth" for his restoration through another faith or culture, then the Lord has every right to bring that truth back into his Church -- without question. All truth is Christ's -- for he is the way, the truth, and the light.

As we properly focus on each of these two truths, "most correct," and the "only true Church" we will profitably grow quicker. If we focus on one more than the other we will lose that independent truth and eventually look beyond the mark.

It needs to be announced unapologetically and unequivocally that this is the only true Church. This is the straight and narrow path. There is no other way to the Father, and this is why we have work for the dead (as you know). We also need to keep aware that the Book of Mormon is the "most correct," because this allows the right and privilege of the apostles and prophets to make updates, corrections, or clarifications to scripture.

 

[The Folk Prophet]

This sort of question feels an awful lot like an effort to excuse the words of the Lord. What comes to mind immediately for me is D&C 1:38: "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself;"

This is expressed practically immediately after the Lord declares the church to be the only true and living church in D&C 1:30.

But inevitably someone comes along and tries to excuse what the Lord said. Let's focus "less" on that. Let's be apologetic about what the Lord declared. I don't find the Lord's declaration in this case as useful. Etc., etc.

That doesn't sit well with me.

I think instead of trying to excuse what the Lord said I'll focus instead on trying to understand why He said it and why it's important.

Edited February 8 by The Folk Prophet

[CommanderSouth]

8 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

This sort of question feels an awful lot like an effort to excuse the words of the Lord. What comes to mind immediately for me is D&C 1:38: "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself;"

This is expressed practically immediately after the Lord declares the church to be the only true and living church in D&C 1:30.

But inevitably someone comes along and tries to excuse what the Lord said. Let's focus "less" on that. Let's be apologetic about what the Lord declared. I don't find the Lord's declaration in this case as useful. Etc., etc.

That doesn't sit well with me.

I think instead of trying to excuse what the Lord said I'll focus instead on trying to understand why He said it and why it's important.

In one breath you aren't wrong.  It's a way of grappling with thornier, less clear cut, issues of church history. The priesthood ban, current LGBT concerns, polygamy, and so on.  Could every single one of these be wholly of the lord and there really isn't any confusion?   Sure.  I am wholly open to that approach.  But I also see how, especially in the realm of LGBT issues, just handlining and saying "God has spoken, pound sand" is very possibly true, but can drive someone away unnecessarily.  We can share the truth we have; we can be honest about things.  But bedside manner counts.  The doctor that curtly tells me that if I too much more pizza I will die and it is totally my fault, may be right.  The thing is though, it's repellant, and will drive me away.  Furthermore, we have revelation BECAUSE of the many important things to be revealed about the kingdom.  The word of wisdom came from Emma pushing Joseph about tobacco clean up.  We've seen stances change, in hindsight, it's always easier to see.  Even Elder McConkie had to straight up say that we had less light with regards to the priesthood.  If we were wrong, the problem is ours, disregard.  

With regards specifically to LGBT questions specifically, The Miracle of Forgiveness said about masturbation, that it led to gay orgies.  It was vehemently condemned.  As times, understandings, and perceptions changed, our language has softened.  Our standards of chastity have not, but the way we speak to those has.  People who used to believe attraction itself was chosen (through action or will, or whatever reason) have realized that is not (always) the case.  The approach is gentler, but the standard is as firm as it has been.  More people are open to the idea that this could lead to further changes.  I am of that mindset myself.  But even in the same breath, that is on God's timeline if it will happen, not mine.  While my mind wonders about Gay sealings in a marriage, I don't expect Men to have children.  Gender is eternal and is so for a reason.  So, for me at least, the change desire is tempered. I hear people online complaining about division and confusion, that leaders are sending mixed messages.  I don't see that.  I welcome the softening of how we approach others.  When the time comes, we do have to be firm, but I think there is a lot more leeway than some realize.

I found out that post op transgender people can be baptized.   I found this out in a video lamenting the decline of standards and complaining about confusion, will this person be able to marry, will they be able to hold the priesthood, and so on.  A quick trip to the church handbook enlightened me.  Post transitioned people can be baptized.  They can be referred to and listed as their identified gender.  They CAN NOT hold the priesthood as a trans man, and in NO CASE hold a temple recommend in a post transition state.  So really, there IS not confusion.  I worry that our more conservative members see this as an assault on fundamentals and are digging in their heels.  I also worry that our more progressive members are thinking that this could lead to ANYTHING being up for change.  I believe NEITHER is correct.  There are things that can change, things that can't, and I still have a testimony of the brethren.  I did with the children of same sex couples happened, even though I didn't understand it, and I do now, when that "change" happened.

All I say about this is that, if change needs to happen, it will.  If it does, do what you've always done, test the spirit.  I say this because I know and have worked with trans folks.  I want to be on the side that reaches out as far as I can to help them.  In the end they have to respond, but I want to be part of the reason they come, not part of what drives them away.

I KNOW that we have the truth.  I KNOW we are the "only true and living church" on the face of the earth.  But I also know if there are mistakes, "they are the mistakes of men".  I'm willing to reserve judgment in case the Lord speaks.  I'm not going to change what I'm doing or lower my standards in the mean time, but I am going to be open to further light.  While you may worry about caving to pressure from outside, I worry about being those saying "a bible a bible".  I simply think we need to know that we DO have all that has been revealed.  But we also are looking forward to all that will YET be revealed.  Sometimes the newer makes the old stuff make sense in a different way (and sometimes it doesn't).

But as I said, I'm not looking for edge cases, like below:

On 2/7/2024 at 12:25 PM, CommanderSouth said:

When I found out the temple rituals were Masonic adjacent (if not wholly lifted) I cared exactly 0%, in fact, I applaud it, it makes sense.  The endowment is covenants, what a beautiful, liturgical, way to apply them.  I'm simply saying that if I found out that the ordinances and what not were meant to convey something MORE than just what they mean on the surface, and the MORE part is what is efficacious, then I would not be upset.  Again, thinking that this somehow allows you to ignore it, in the off chance that IT in and of itself isn't what "saves" you, you are playing Russian Roulette with your soul.  If God tells you to do it (and he has given US this "law") THEN DO IT.

So that's why I don't have a problem with it.  It helps me reconcile people who I truly believe haven't yet received an answer, with my also true belief that they will.  That's what all this comes down to.  I believe people may pray earnestly and not get an answer, because I have faith in them.  But I also believe the church is true, because I have experienced that truth.  I have to reconcile these, and this is how I do so.  I do my best and leave the rest to God.  My Mom loves God, and still speaks in tongues as a Pentecostal.  I don't know why she hasn't been lead to the church when I've talked to her about it, and the verse comes to my mind as said also by CS Lewis...

First, Romans 9:15 "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion." Then John 21:22 "Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me."

Edited February 8 by CommanderSouth

[The Folk Prophet]

35 minutes ago, CommanderSouth said:

But bedside manner counts.

Does it?

Are you suggesting that if you or I or someone says something that offends another that their exaltation will be lost on our account? That they, after all is said and done, didn't have agency after all? That their choice of exaltation is in our hands, rather than theirs?

Edited February 8 by The Folk Prophet

[Vort]

1 hour ago, CommanderSouth said:

Even Elder McConkie had to straight up say that we had less light with regards to the priesthood.

This is incorrect. McConkie was not talking about the practice of denying Priesthood and temple blessings to those of black African descent. Rather, he was talking about the various reasonings and theories that tried to explain the practice, and specifically about those ideas that said something like, "Black African people are descendants of Cain and carry his curse, so no black man will receive the Priesthood under every son of Abel [or Seth, or someone else] has had the opportunity to receive it." When McConkie said to ignore what he or any other leader had said on the subject, he was referring to this type of thing, and not to the practice itself of excluding those of black African descent from certain Priesthood blessings and obligations. Neither he nor any of the apostles or First Presidency members of the time who signed onto that so-called Manifesto at any time ever even hinted that the doctrine* that those of black African descent were not to be ordained to the Priesthood or make temple covenants was itself false or wrong or faulty.

*Which people now like to call "policy", but make no mistake, doctrine it absolutely was. For that matter, it still is a doctrine, though no longer practiced or taught for current observation. Until 1978, men of known black African descent were not to have been ordained to a Priesthood office or to have had the Priesthood conferred upon them. Today we no longer observe that practice, just as the Jews after Jesus' resurrection were no longer required to observe the practice of male circumcision. That doesn't mean that circumcision suddenly had no longer been the doctrine of Judaism for over a thousand years.

[prisonchaplain]

In Pentecost, we sometimes talk about "dead churches." We mean those that may preach/teach truth but lack the fire of the Holy Ghost. Ironically, AW Tozer, who was not Pentecostal, wrote of ministers who "turn the crank." He meant those who know how to operate a church--to run it effectively. They preach the truth, lead committees, sing on tune, and the congregation is mostly happy. But there's no Holy Ghost power in the place. He bemoans this reality. Even Francis Chan has said that he could quickly build a mega-church. He's a dynamic and authentic-sounding speaker. He knows good music and could hire the right worship band. With some demographic mapping, he is business savvy enough to find a great location. He's not interested, though. He wants the authentic. He wants a church that is Spirit-led. Again, he's not Pentecostal. 

Yes, many non-LDS (especially us Evangelicals) get caught up in claims of "the only true church." To my ears, "only living church" should be just as provocative. On the other hand, if it's true own it. If it was true and now it's not as true (maybe we're catching up), then soften it or let it go. 

Edited February 11 by prisonchaplain

[LDSGator]

18 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Does it?

Bedside manner and how you treat people doesn’t matter?

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Bedside manner and how you treat people doesn’t matter?

What matters? The attempt? Or success?

Obviously, for our own sake, it matters that we try our best. But the idea that our failure or success in how we interact with others, despite our best efforts, determine their salvation is not correct. 

God does His work. We do our best. 

The OP is suggesting that our bedside imperfections are key to other's damnation. 

[LDSGator]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The OP is suggesting that our bedside imperfections are key to other's damnation. 

Yeah, that’s too far and I agree with you there. But how we treat others matters, especially those who know nothing about the church.  

I don’t want people to know I’m LDS and walk away thinking all LDS are abrasive prigs. So I don’t act like one.  

Edited February 9 by LDSGator

[The Folk Prophet]

6 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Yeah, that’s too far and I agree with you there. But how we treat others matters, especially those who know nothing about the church.  

It only matters as to our own salvation. To suggest otherwise is to take away others' salvation against their choice and to claim God is entirely unfair.

I am fully confident that if I have terrible bedside manner and drive others away from the church because of my terrible bedside manner, that they'll have the same chance at exaltation as if they'd never met me. I'm also confident that if I'm doing my best but still have terrible bedside manner because I'm the moron that I am, that God will forgive me as I do my best to repent and change, despite failure upon failure. And I am fully confident that no matter how others treat me, in or out of the church, that my choice of salvation or damnation is completely and fully my own. And I'm also fully confident that if I purposefully go out and preach against the Gospel and Christ, or set a terrible example, or otherwise do Satan's work, that they only soul I'll ultimately be damning by those actions is my own.

Edited February 9 by The Folk Prophet

[LDSGator]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

e. I'm also confident that if I'm doing my best but still have terrible bedside manner because I'm the moron that I am, that God will forgive me as I do my best to repent and change

as long as others don’t use that as a crutch to treat people like rubbish, I generally agree. 

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, LDSGator said:

as long as others don’t use that as a crutch to treat people like rubbish, I generally agree. 

So what if they do? Plenty do. Plenty behave terribly. Plenty serve Satan. It's reality. It will happen. You, I, and everyone will get treated like rubbish throughout our lives, and oft times by members of the church. And you, I, and everyone will at times treat others like rubbish, either accidentally or intentionally. If intentional, we'll repent or we won't. If we do repent, our standing remains secure. If we don't, our standing will crumble.

Clearly the gospel message is to not treat others like rubbish (though even that's a relative statement*). Any suggestion that we should intentionally treat others like rubbish is silly. Obviously. But to act like the church members are at fault for others coming to or not coming to Christ is also, in my opinion, pretty silly.

That's where I take issue with posts like this. "We need to do this or we'll drive people away." Nope. That's not why. We need to follow Christ because we love Him. We need to serve others because we love them and because we love Christ. And we need to obey the commandments and repent when we fail. And we do this by our own agency and will stand accountable for ourselves alone in the end.

In particular, the idea that we need to stop focusing on the words of God because it might drive others away is particularly ridiculous. I mean at least it makes a sort of sense that we need to not be total jerks to others. But even that falls apart when speaking in terms of their salvation potential. But clearly we'll damn ourselves through such behavior. But to claim that we need to stop preaching God's word because others might be offended by it and would otherwise be saved....? Yeah... I don't think so.

*I've found that what's perceived as being treated like rubbish is often in the eye of the receiver, and it can be very difficult to second guess that in many cases. Moreover, it could be pretty soundly argued that Christ treated the Pharisees and Sadducees like "rubbish" -- particularly in the eyes of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

[LDSGator]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

So what if they do? Plenty do. Plenty behave terribly. Plenty serve Satan. It's reality. It will happen. You, I, and everyone will get treated like rubbish throughout our lives, and oft times by members of the church. And you, I, and everyone will at times treat others like rubbish, either accidentally or intentionally. If intentional, we'll repent or we won't. If we do repent, our standing remains secure. If we don't, our standing will crumble.

Clearly the gospel message is to not treat others like rubbish (though even that's a relative statement*). Any suggestion that we should intentionally treat others like rubbish is silly. Obviously. But to act like the church members are at fault for others coming to or not coming to Christ is also, in my opinion, pretty silly.

That's where I take issue with posts like this. "We need to do this or we'll drive people away." Nope. That's not why. We need to follow Christ because we love Him. We need to serve others because we love them and because we love Christ. And we need to obey the commandments and repent when we fail. And we do this by our own agency and will stand accountable for ourselves alone in the end.

In particular, the idea that we need to stop focusing on the words of God because it might drive others away is particularly ridiculous. I mean at least it makes a sort of sense that we need to not be total jerks to others. But even that falls apart when speaking in terms of their salvation potential. But clearly we'll damn ourselves through such behavior. But to claim that we need to stop preaching God's word because others might be offended by it and would otherwise be saved....? Yeah... I don't think so.

*I've found that what's perceived as being treated like rubbish is often in the eye of the receiver, and it can be very difficult to second guess that in many cases. Moreover, it could be pretty soundly argued that Christ treated the Pharisees and Sadducees like "rubbish" -- particularly in the eyes of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Okay. 

[EH12NG]

@LDSGator If what I'm reading from you is correct and I'm not putting words in your mouth, like what I've seen in this thread. I agree that manners cost nothing and that first impressions are lasting ones. I would hate to think my flaws as a human have left a bad taste in the mouths of non members but so long as I don't use any wriggle room I have in that scenario as a means to get away with being nasty, impolite, arrogant or just down right idiotic. Then I have faith in the plan for said peoples lives. 

As always Gator, I appreciate your short and concise input in any given thread. I've long given up entertaining the antics of those who peddle in windbaggery. I hope you're well and in good spirits. 

Edited February 11 by EH12NG

[LDSGator]

2 hours ago, EH12NG said:

@LDSGatorAs always Gator, I appreciate your short and concise input in any given thread. I've long given up entertaining the antics of those who peddle in windbaggery. I hope you're well and in good spirits. 

Thank you my friend. Living the dream.