Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I just finished reading through Elder Renlund’s talk. I like how he specifies that we do not earn blessings. However, it still leaves me with questions.
Quote:When you receive any blessing from God, you can conclude that you have complied with an eternal law governing reception of that blessing. But remember that the “irrevocably decreed” law is time insensitive, meaning blessings come on God’s timetable. Even ancient prophets in search of their heavenly home “died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off … [and] were persuaded … and embraced them.” If a desired blessing from God has not been received—yet—you do not need to go crazy, wondering what more you need to do. Instead, heed Joseph Smith’s counsel to “cheerfully do all things that lie in [your] power; and then … stand still, with the utmost assurance, to see the … arm [of God] … revealed.” Some blessings are reserved for later, even for the most valiant of God’s children.
So when we receive blessings, we know we obeyed a certain law — is there a way to know
whichlaw that blessing is tied to? And if you don’t receive blessings, it doesn’t necessarily mean you
didn’tfollow the law. The blessing might come later. I hope this leads to less judgement thinking people who lack some blessing must be unworthy, like when missionaries are told they would have had a better experience if only they were more obedient. Quote:I invite you to faithfully activate heavenly power to receive specific blessings from God.
I feel like I still have no idea what these “specific blessings” are.
So we don’t earn blessings, we just exercise faith to qualify for blessings, which may not come for a long time. I struggle with the idea of God’s timing. I suppose what I really want is for blessings, and answers to prayer, to be a sort of indication that God is actually there, that the commandments are actually of God and not of man. I want some sort of testable hypothesis to find out what is true, if what I’m doing is right. But the “God’s way, God’s timing” idea makes it so nothing is predictable or testable.
I guess this is where faith comes in, but it’s a struggle.
Dune definitely goes far deeper into religion, but it’s easier to do that in a book than in a movie. That’s why there still hasn’t been a really good Dune movie (though there’s a new one in the works–I don’t expect much). I grew up with the prequels, so I actually quite like those movies in spite of all the criticism. I always liked Anakin’s overall story throughout the saga. The idea that he was the Chosen One, but fell to the dark side. And after all that, he still fulfilled his purpose in bringing balance to the Force. When Anakin became Vader, it seemed like the prophecy was wrong. He joined the Sith and would seemingly never be the one to bring balance. In the end he was still the Chosen One, and the prophecy was right, just not in a way anyone expected. Anakin had a foreordained mission that he accomplished, but not by following the Jedi path.
DarkJedi wrote:
Frankly if I had not read the four gospels as part of rebuilding my faith I may still not be an active member today.
This is where I’m at currrently in my own journey. I’m focusing on studying the New Testament for now, and it’s amazing how much better things fall into place with a focus on the simple, fundamental teachings of Christ.
Quote:The fundamental principles of our religion is the testimony of the apostles and prophets concerning Jesus Christ, “that he died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended up into heaven;” and all other things are only appendages to these, which pertain to our religion.
–Joseph Smith
I think the “fullness of the gospel” is really just the core message- the message of God’s love shown through Jesus’ life, ministry, death and resurrection.
As for other teachings in the Book of Mormon, I think there is also a significant message about social issues like wealth inequality.
I really didn’t like Nelson’s talk either. I remember as a missionary we had a recent convert who broke down crying when taught about eternal families because she would be separated from her nonreligious parents. She later disappeared and never came back to church. Until then I never really realized that the traditional way of teaching the plan of salvation is not a message of joy for everyone, and can even bring a lot of pain for some. I think we need to remember that President Nelson still sees the doctrine of eternal families and saving ordinances as a message of joy. I don’t think he fully understands that it is a painful message for others whose families don’t fit the mold. He also said he was grateful that he was not that man’s judge. I am grateful too, since I believe Christ will be a far more merciful judge than any of us imagine.
I do think that overall, this conference did a good job of focusing on the Savior. The general trend lately seems to be toward more love and acceptance, even though there are still many bumps in the road.
Haven’t watched all of them yet, but I liked Gong and (surprisingly) Bednar. Nelson’s talk about ordinances didn’t really work for me.
When I hear things like this I always wonder, of what use is prayer when answers come in some form we don’t recognize? Wouldn’t God give us an answer we understand? It all seems pretty pointless to me. I think for some people this kind of faith just brings comfort. Comfort that whatever happens is part of the plan, we just don’t recognize it, or the answer just isn’t here yet. A sense that everything will work out for the best. Covering all possibilities allows for this sense of comfort even when things are bad and don’t get better. But personally, I would much rather get answers when I need them and in a form I can recognize.
mom3 wrote:
Amen “When we see others as how soon they will don a white jump suit and look for the nearest baptismal font – you are doing it wrong. “
Interesting. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard that story about the successful missionary with lots of baptisms, who tells the secret of his success as imagining everyone he meets in white baptismal clothing. I never really liked the focus on baptism statistics as a missionary.
Rumin8 wrote:
Arrakeen,Can you provide the citation for this quote from Richard Rohr? I’d like to explore it in greater detail and context. What a great way to look at the atonement.
From Richard Rohr:
Quote:Historically we moved from human sacrifice to animal sacrifice to various modes of seeming self-sacrifice, usually involving the body. For many religions, including immature Christianity, God was distant and scary, an angry deity who must be placated. God was not someone with whom you fell in love or with whom you could imagine sharing intimacy or tenderness.
The common Christian reading of the Bible is that Jesus “died for our sins”—either to pay a debt to the devil (common in the first millennium) or to pay a debt to God the Father (proposed by Anselm of Canterbury, 1033-1109). Theologians later developed a “substitutionary atonement theory”—the strange idea that before God could love us God needed and demanded Jesus to be a blood sacrifice to ”atone” for our sin. As a result, our theology became more transactional than transformational.
…
Jesus did not come to change the mind of God about humanity (it did not need changing)! Jesus came to change the mind of humanity about God. God’s abundance and compassion make any scarcity economy of merit or atonement unhelpful and unnecessary. Jesus undid “once and for all” (Hebrews 7:27; 9:12; 10:10) all notions of human and animal sacrifice and replaced them with his new infinite economy of grace. Jesus was meant to be a game changer for religion and the human psyche.
I like this idea that the purpose of the atonement was to replace the idea of a harsh, vengeful God with a loving, compassionate God. The religion at the time had become very obsessed with the idea of displeasing God through sin, and Jesus challenged these ideas to introduce God as a loving father-figure. Jesus represented a God who rather than punishing sin or distancing himself from the “unworthy”, spent his time among sinners and outcasts. Unfortunately, I think we often revert to a pre-Christ “worthiness”-based form of our religion, effectively rejecting the entire purpose of Jesus’ ministry. I also think our teachings on the atonement tend to focus too much on the purpose of Jesus’ death, when we also need to remember the purpose of his life. I consider both to be part of the atonement.
nibbler wrote:
There’s also the rumor that some countries, Brazil in particular, that require clergy training for people to receive a missionary visa. I don’t know whether that’s true, but the rumor was that seminary filled that role.
This is the case for New Zealand, I had to get a proselyting certificate and seminary counted as my “clergy training”. I don’t think seminary will go away anytime soon.
Minyan Man wrote:
They are reasonably happy, fulfilled, good partners to their spouse, good parents & decent all round human beings.I loved them beyond words. Also, I consider them to be good friends to their Mother & me. We ask their opinions
on a regular basis.
That sounds like success to me. The “ideal” family in the church doesn’t really exist. To me, failure in the home is when judgement or differences are allowed to get in the way of love. I think this unfortunately happens far too often when some people try to force their family to fit into their idea of a “perfect celestial home” mold. For example, I’ve heard of some missionaries who were afraid of being disowned if they returned early.Fearisthemindkiller wrote:
The main reason I ask this question is that as I look for someone to share my life with, I want our commitment to be to each other with no higher organization relegating our marriage (maybe some of you older folk can tell me I’m being idealistic and foolish, you could even be right). Therefore, I cannot square the exposure I would have marrying a member of the church. If I left, she would leave me. If we had children, they would be taught to hate me. What is great enough to knowingly bring the danger of this happening into their lives? “For what is a man profited if he gain the whole world, and lose his soul?”I need to move forward with my life, and the answers to these questions (if there are any to be found) are keeping me from progressing. They cause me to become depressed, dejected and to believe that there is no hope in a life anywhere. Inside the church where my actions are consistent but my beliefs and thoughts are not (and my exposure is total) or outside the church where my beliefs are (more) consistent but my actions alienate me from others (living with Mormon standards is not really that cool)
I have had similar thoughts recently. You’re definitely not alone with these questions. As for marriage, I have decided it is a conversation that will have to happen at some point when I end up in a committed relationship. The possibility of me not staying in the church or going inactive. That way, if she’s not okay with it we can deal with it there instead of it coming up after marriage. I believe marriage should be solely between the people who are actually married to each other–independently of God or the church.
I have found that a surprising number of people in the church have somewhat unorthodox views, even if they don’t usually speak up about it (this is at BYU). There are also a lot of people outside the church who admire the Mormon —
😮 — standards. There are people who can relate to you, it just might take some time to find them.Also, you don’t necessarily need to find answers to your questions before you can move forward. There are plenty of good things you can go out and do that have nothing to do with the church. I find I get pretty discouraged trying to find answers to all of my existential questions, and I feel much better getting out and doing something like martial arts, hiking, participating in clubs at school, etc.
Well it looks like doubt is the big topic right now for general authority talks… Today’s BYU devotional by Elder Corbridge was also about doubt. It felt like it was going back to the “it’s not okay to doubt” narrative. We had Renlund at the worldwide devotional talk about doubt as foolish and dangerous. Then we had Uchtdorf at the devotional say it’s okay if you can’t believe now, start with hope. Now we have Corbridge talking about how you should believe in the church, then all of these other concerns are insignificant.
It seems like the church leadership really has no consensus on how to address this issue. I personally think Uchtdorf’s more compassionate approach will have to win in the long run for people to want to stay.
AmyJ wrote:
It’s also in part the loneliness of the-place-I-am-is-not-even-on-your-map perspective-wise
For me, it’s mostly this. I’m fine with having doubts. Uncertainty is a fact of life. What bothers me is how hard it is to find others who understand my perspective, which makes church feel quite lonely. Even those who are more willing to listen often have difficulty understanding why I feel differently about things. No matter how friendly people are, it can still hurt to be the black sheep. Maybe if the church was more accepting of doubters, they would be more willing to stand out and it wouldn’t be so hard to find others like me.
