Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Heber13 wrote:
Now I am not saying you are in favor of blind obedience or that you imply it in your message, but there is that tone of “I don’t believe it is a revelation as we are taught it by the church now, I will obey it anyway”. Personally, that is how I think through it…it is just not a big deal, so I am not sacrificing anything by giving up tea to be in good church standings, so I choose to live it.
No, that’s not what I mean at all. With things like this (paying tithing to the church, obeying WoW, etc.) I view it as a contract. For me to remain a “member in good standing” including a temple recommend, the church requires me to obey the WoW. By obtaining a temple recommend, I am agreeing to that contract (literally signing the temple recommend). Since I try to uphold my contracts (integrity) I keep the WoW.This is subtly different than blind obedience. Blind obedience is an abdication of decision making due to trust/faith/confidence/etc. in the authority. It accepts the contract
becauseof the person giving it. My response is a conscious decision to accept the contract because I want to. We might ask why I would want to accept the contract? The answer is the same for anyone. I accept the contract because I believe the benefit to me outweighs the costs. As I have kept the WoW all my life keeping the WoW is virtually no cost to me. So accepting the contract is a no-brainer. I admit that at surface value there is no difference between my method and blind obedience. cwald wrote:These two comments COULD be mildly offensive to me. (I’ve read GB and Euhemerus enough on these blogs to not be offended, however, if I heard this from a TBM — yeah, I would be offended.)
Ah, shucks, thanks cwald. I’ll try harder!
Old-Timer wrote:It’s the other side of the blind obedience coin. That’s worth considering – completely apart from the WofW discussion here.
Yep. This is why I chuckle at the idea of rebelling “against the man” just because “the man” makes a rule. Rebellious individuals detest the control they feel is placed on them, and their solution to overthrow the control is to do the opposite. The great irony is a good controller will recognize this and manipulate the individual. Witness communist Russia!cwald, you should do, and not do things because you want to or think it right/wrong. Any other reason is simply granting too much power to anyone else and does nothing for your personal growth. Occasionally, it behooves us though to take the advice of those gone before. It’s a tricky balance.
I wrote a
postMan, Brian, I thought I had Tea 101 for Mormons down. You’ve got more of it figured out than me. I gave a very academic lesson on it one time in Gospel Principles. Anyway, I agree strongly with what Ray and Brian and Heber and pretty much the rest of you have said.
@Ray Thanks for the post. I really felt like I could hear your “soul” coming through. Very touching.
Another thing that strikes me is your ending statement
Old-Timer wrote:I will be back to the more analytical side of these resolutions posts next week
I had to smile because it seems that people like us can’t get away from the analysis! Even when we take a short break to really expose our feelings, we turn back quickly to analysis. My wife is quite the opposite, and from time to time I find myself wishing I could turn off the analysis a bit.Yeah, these are my favorite types of questions to ask. The truth is it is a designed process and designed answer. To the faithful, normal, regular TBM there is no other acceptable answer. The thing is, this is exactly the point. You are supposed to pray until you get the right answer. Same goes for following the words of the prophet. Sure our prophet is fallible. How can you know when he is speaking as a man or a prophet? Simple, you pray for a confirmation of his words. Ah, but the trick is, there’s only one right answer.
Obviously I’m being cynical and I know not everyone believes this. In fact, as I spend time outside of Utah, it’s really the heart of Happy Valley that suffers from this disfunction mostly. Outside of Utah people are much more introspective and willing to see nuance.
Heber13 wrote:You should read my journals…although I kept one off and on since my mission…almost every entry is about the things I need to do better (bad Heber…you can do better…there is still so much more I need to do…etc etc etc).
Oh, I don’t need to – mine are the same way!However, Heber13, I don’t mean to probe you, but I’m not asking which ones are
helpful, I’m asking which ones are necessary. In other words, if one can obtain perfection and not keep the WoW it is clearly not necessary. I think we could make a case for many individuals of other religions who will likely become “perfected” who don’t keep the WoW. Which ones do you think are necessary (in a general sense, not just for Heber13)? Old-Timer wrote:The ones that deal with internalizing love, including some that aren’t obvious at first glance. Probably not much else.
Yes, this is what I would say as well. I really believe that primarily our struggle in this life is an internal battle. Physical actions certainly have an effect on that battle, but they are not the focus. Ray, in this vein, what about some more tricky things like eternal marriage? Can one become “perfected” like God without being married?Old-Timer wrote:The consequences outweigh the benefits whenever they do.
Yeah, I see what you’re saying here. Obviously what I was driving at is whether or not there are some “appendages” to the necessary laws, which, for the church as a whole, have more unintended consequences than benefits. Perhaps the “tea” stipulation on the WoW for example. Or maybe the “white shirt and tie” cultural imperative. My political viewpoints leave me very very skeptical to passing any “laws” or “rules” without giving due diligence to the possible unintended consequences (which means I’m not a fan of most rules). I tend to think that things work themselves out by rather natural processes.swimordie wrote:Right now I’m way into:
The Killers (they’re kinda nom)
The Strokes
Arctic Monkeys
Band of Horses
I wish some ward would have the cajones to do the hymn “Ring Out Wild Bells” at New Year. It rocks! Yes, even for a hymn.
I love The Killers! And they’re name is almost as cool as Bare Naked Ladies!
Rather than answering your question, I’m going to challenge your post.
1. You’ve used “begging the question” to answer an important question. This is a fallacious argument.
2. Not sure what this means “Is there any proof that such substances are of the devil?” but I don’t know of any modern church leader that preaches this. In any case, what proof do you have that there is a devil? Since when have theological claims had anything to do with proof?
3. “How do we know for certain that such substances might not, in fact, enhance our faith rather than hinder it?” Depends on your point of view, and how you regard science. In any case, how do you know for certain there is a God at all? Such arguments do little to settle a theological debate.
The WoW as defined in the LDS church (including our list of substances to avoid) is tradition wrapped up in a theological argument. There is never any proof of such an argument – they are to be taken on faith. One can make all kinds of appeals to science and studies showing the goodness or badness of ingesting/smoking/injecting substances but it won’t change the nature of the WoW. I think there is good reasoning to limit one’s use of many substances found in this world, as indicated by numerous studies. But I don’t accept nor reject the WoW based on those “proofs.”
As for me, I accept the WoW because I have decided to be a member of the LDS church in good standing, and hold a TR. As a result, my integrity leads me to obey the WoW as a part of that decision.
Welcome. I loved your introduction, very heartfelt. Hopefully you will be able to find what you need here. Here’s a more interesting question (I think). You have to think really really hard and long. Don’t let you knee-jerk response fool you. Ready, here ya go:
Is there ANYTHING you can conceive of that you would want to do for eternity? Is there ANYONE you would want to be with for eternity? Eternity is a very very very very very very (ad nauseum) long time.
Since my answer to that question is “no” I am left to conclude that if there is a celestial kingdom, I really hope I simply can’t conceive of how marvelous it will be and what I will do and who I will be with. And if I can’t conceive of it, then I can’t intelligently talk about it or make conclusions about it.
I liked the movie overall. However, like some have said, I thought the plot was horribly predictable and boring. Guy starts out doing x for reasons y, but falls in love with girl z forgetting all about reasons y. Meanwhile, reasons y escalate and guy has to choose between reasons y and girl z. Girl z finds out, hates guy, guy saves day, apologizes, and everyone lives happily ever after. It’s like the classic chick-flick theme revamped with cool special effects and placed in the context of environmentalism and tribal security.
The best part of the movie was the exploration of what it means to be a person. If I’m Euhemerus now, what does it mean to be Euhemerus 10 years from now? How would anyone know it is “me”? Is this inextricably tied to my body, my mind, my “soul”? What does this mean for how we perceive death? What does this mean for the resurrection?
Old-Timer wrote:It’s hard to tell someone whose mistaken view is based in humility.
I’ve been thinking about humility lately. It’s one of those words that I think is rather ill-defined in Mormonism (like faith). I think humility (in Mormonism) tends to be centered around the authority-obedience paradigm. Those who reject the authority are clearly not humble. Those who don’t obey are proud. Those who do not get the designed answer to their prayer must be at fault, or proud, or whatever. In other words, I’m not convinced this sort of behavior is real humility. I think it’s a sort of pseudo-humility, or faux-humility that’s based around the idea that someone else knows what’s best for us. The problem with this sort of humility (as evidenced in many religions) is it results in close-mindedness.The only definition I’ve been able to come up with that I think more purely fits the nature of humility, and allows for those of use who have had a very humble faith crisis, is – openness to the truth. Humility is a measure of how open we are to the truth, no matter what it may be.
To tie this back to the OP, part of God answering my prayers is my willingness to be shown whatever the “truth” is. For some, like myself, and perhaps GBSmith, the results might be less spectacular, and less convincing than it might be for someone like Jared.
