Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
cwald wrote:
I will bow out now and let others voice an opinion. I hope someone here can logically tell me how I am wrong and way off on my conclusions. I would love for someone here to tell me and show me how the “universal” principles that Ray has been describing here actually fit in with our religion – using the prophets words from the last 30 years. Someone tell me I’m wrong in my conclusions. Someone convince me that the LDS church actually teaches and believes all this “pure mormonism” that we like to talk about so much.Can’t do it logically, cwald. It’s extra-rational. But it’s also the reality.
The LDS church fosters the ability of the Saints to tune into the Holy Spirit. That’s why we fast, that’s why we serve, that’s why we do 90% of what we do. Ok, maybe it’s 80%.
Those who belong to the Shepherd, hear His voice. Those who ponder and meditate on the endowment (and many scriptures as well) and then act in faith on the resulting experiences are led through the ‘Cloud Upon the Sanctuary’ and into the Church of the Firstborn — where there are no buildings, no meetings, no roster and no leaders save One. This is, frankly, the mission of every ‘church’ ‘ashram’ ‘synagogue’ or ‘temple’. In my experience, there is no church that can compare to the LDS church in providing this vital service to its members.
It’s funny. This reminds me of a time (decades ago) when I was studying the Secret of the Golden Flower (Buddhist) and read the writing of an ‘ascended Master’ who, in the deep meditation of his practice, suddenly saw a white, shining man who appeared to him. He did not dare to close the distance, but merely observed, as the man smiled and then faded out. “Who”, said he (the mystic), “could it have been, but the Buddha?”
Let me add to that, an experience of a friend of mine. He was a RM and quite serious, devout and so forth in the Church. One day as he was open to the Spirit, he suddenly saw Jesus appear before him. He saw in vision, darkness all around, save Jesus, who shone with radiant light. As his intellectual, logical mind kicked in, he paused. Then he said to Jesus “really?” “That’s you, God? If there is something my own biases are interfering with my perception of You, if You are not exactly as You appear to me, then please reveal Yourself to me as You really, really are!” Jesus disappeared and Santa Claus appeared. “WHAT!?” Santa disappeared and the Easter Bunny appeared. Buddha, Confucius, and more appeared. “No, but really, God — let me see You as You really are”, said my friend. And then there was Nothing. Nothing at all. As you can imagine, this shook my friend up and thrust him into severe doubt.
Which, I think, is just what he needed.
If you know Kabbalah (which my friend did not know at the time), then this confirms that God has a sense of humor. Ein or Ain.
http://www.webofqabalah.com/id28.html But that’s another story.😈 The question is, what is the “Church of the Lamb of God” today? It is all those churches and traditions and religions, etc. that lead their members into the Light. At that point, it is our job to ‘see’ the Light and follow it. The LDS Church does this beautifully, for those who have ears to hear and eyes to see. All we need is faith, and an affinity for the Light. Added later: …and humility…
:wave: HiJolly
I wish so too, Ray. And I agree with you on salvation & exaltation. I really would like to have a ‘like’ button available…
HiJolly
silentstruggle wrote:So when do we hear how it went?
Go to John’s Facebook page.He said it went well, the SP showed compassion and had called John in because of his media exposure on the Book of Mormon Broadway play.
HiJolly
cwald wrote:I won’t blame anyone for walking away from it all.
– but if the church doesn’t make more of an effort to make NOMish folks feel welcome…. the church has done a great job making NOMish folk feel unwelcome and in some cases just pushing them out, which is contributing to the progress of the the slow to an even slower rate.
I agree.HiJolly
Zen Bhuddism has a great process for deconstruction and rebuilding of faith/belief/worldview. Socrates and Descartes also.
HiJolly
But Katzpur…. The Church of the Lamb of God is much larger than .2% of the worlds population… It’s still not a majority, but I don’t think things are as bleak as you seem to suggest.
You don’t have to keep the erroneous opinions of the majority of the membership of the Church as your own.
HiJolly
mercyngrace wrote:Thanks for that response, SD, I wasn’t sure exactly how to take your question and I was traveling along a completely different line of thought.
Same. I was afraid SD was coming from a different place, and I wanted to comment, but was afraid I had misunderstood something. M&G, you request for clarification is what was needed.
mercyngrace wrote:I’m not sure if I sacrificed my idealism or if my ideal simply changed.
What, you’re *humble*, or something?
:clap: I take your meaning, though — and I think personally that changing the idealism not only requires humility, but also and concurrently, sacrifice.mercyngrace wrote:I will say that I’ve faced a couple of difficult situations where the institution of the church seemed to contradict the teachings of Christ. These moments felt to me like Abraham standing over a bound Isaac. The hardest thing ever asked of me has been to submit to policies that were clearly written for a telestial people while I was willing to abide a celestial law.
Yes! Although I must say that I keep finding telestrialism within myself, at the most inopportune moments. Sadly. having children really put that on the fast track, I must say. Love ’em, but sometimes what my kids reveal about myself is scary.
There are a couple of ways this thought has been brought out by various people. One is that the Church is not for celestial saints as much as it is for convalescing sinners. I like that view, because when I really get down to brass tacks, I *am* a sinner. Still. Over & over. So the Church works.
The other is that the ‘regular’ saints are caterpillars, crawling along at a ghastly, low & slow gospel level. And the enlightened saints are those that have gone into chrysalis (dark night of the soul?), have internally changed into new beings, are are now ready to fly. I can relate to that. I had to lay down, sacrifice if you will, my internal view of the Church and its leaders as this wonderful can-do-no-wrong monolith, and adapt it to the reality of what I’m experiencing. The downside to this in my view is that some butterflies forget their fellow caterpillars and leave the Church, thus slowing the progress of the slow to an even slower rate. We miss their awesome example and company.
I sometimes feel like crying for those I’ve known that could have done so much within the Church, but just didn’t have the patience (or ?) to remain. That’s not to say I think that they did something terrible, I know they may have needed to flee, within themselves. That’s ok in principle, but when I see what they could’ve done, then it does sadden me. Maybe I’m just selfish.
mercyngrace wrote:The church is just a vehicle clattering along a bumpy road through the wilderness with a meandering course plotted toward the promised land.
Yep. It has to be. But we *all* have the possibility of flight.HiJolly
Cindi wrote:I liked this series a lot. I checked it out from the library and watched it recently.
The part I liked best was the part about politics and religion. It spoke volumes to me about the parties and their usage of religion to get what they want. Each party (but especially the one I used to belong to, ha!) tends to think they have the moral high ground. It’s ugly. I appreciated learning the history of that.
Me also. I really enjoyed the series, and learned a lot.HiJolly
Forgive me, Ray, but I’m going to respond in this thread. After all, there are 4 other threads, so five does seem to follow. Katzpur wrote:I am genuinely interested in understanding what it is people mean when they say, “I know the Church is true.” I’ve been struggling to grasp this since I was a child. When I was in high school, I confided in a Seminary teacher I really admired that I wasn’t sure I “knew” the Church was true. I told him I “believed” it was, but I wondered how it was possible to really “know.” He asked me, “Do you love your parents?” “Absolutely,” I answered. “Are you sure? Do you really know you love them?” he asked. “Yes, I know for sure,” I said. “Well,” he said, “it’s the same thing with knowing the Church is true.” I thanked him and went away thinking that that made no sense.
As a child, I had a spiritual experience where I was “given” an overwhelming certainty that the Church was “true”. It was more than a witness, though I received that too. I suddenly and absolutely *knew* that the Church was unquestionably “true”. This kind of certainty is non-rational, is highly emotional, and (if you know your science fiction well) is like the Mule in Asimov’s
Foundationseries, as he re-adjusts people’s loyalties to a loyalty to him personally. So for many years when I said those famous words “I know the Church is true” — I really meant it. But how could I explain it? I didn’t even try, for the source of the certainly was not only non-rational, it was ineffible as well. Not to mention how young I was and inexperienced in explaining things to people. Then I got edjumacated and things changed, but still! I have had to deal with that early witness in an honest way within myself. It’s been interesting.
Katzpur wrote:How can so many Mormons “know” the Church is true when even more Catholics “know” Catholicism is true?
If both Churches are part of the Church of the Lamb of God, wouldn’t that make them ‘true’? If both were paths to Christ and the Church of the Firstborn, wouldn’t that prove they are ‘true’? If I knew the Church was ‘true’ and so I kept the rules and studied my scriptures and gave countless hours of service and learn to be a leader and didn’t swear and didn’t go out drinking & partying, is that a good thing? I think so.
Yes, I’ve re-defined ‘true’. It’s in the dictionary this way, though, so I don’t think I’ve done anything wrong. True as an arrow is straight. Useful, practical, accomplishing its design. Truth to Bro. Johnston is a ham sandwich, but to me it is what works. Maybe that’s the same thing.
Katzpur wrote:Knowing with an absolute certainty that I feel a particular emotion is not the same thing at all as knowing that something you have been taught is accurate.
Exactly. The first is non-rational, the second is rational. Both are based on evidence, but of different categories. You’ve got two sides to the higher order of your brain. They work very differently. Both are legitimate, regardless of what Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens say. And how about this: of the four horsemen, Sam Harris agrees with me. Well, somewhat… I’ve read all three.
Katzpur wrote:I’m 62 years old and I still “believe” the Church is true. I’ve pretty much given up thinking I’m ever going to “know.” I am confused, though. If people are using the word “know” as I would use it, I wonder how they came to know. If they’re using the word to mean “strongly believe,” why don’t they just say that?
I know the Church is true. And I know the Church is not true. It’s all in your frame of reference. I guarantee it’s not what I thought it was through most of my life.It’s better!In coming to this realization, I’ve had to jettison several Church teachings. But at least some weren’t doctrinal anyway, like the “This is the one & only True Church”. And all my new positions are ones that the Spirit has testified to. So it’s all good.
HiJolly
Old-Timer wrote:Yes, it was the Spirit – which, we are told, testifies of truth and right, no matter where it is found.
We (all of us, LDS or not) tend to limit the Spirit far too much, I believe.
I totally agree with Ray. Just so.HiJolly
SamBee wrote:At times, Mormonism is incredibly insightful, and I like that. At other times, it can be stupid and ignorant. Fortunately I haven’t had massive experience of the latter.
Great post, SamBee.You want “experience in the matter”, move to Utah.
HiJolly
Old-Timer wrote:HiJolly, give us the facts, please. If I remember correctly, based on a previous thread, you are Pres. Uchtdorf posting incognito, right?
Everyone, let’s hold off on any speculation about that question until HiJolly (or someone else with personal knowledge of the answer) can read this and provide the answer.
🙄 If I remember correctly, there is some vetting done, not sure if it’s correlation or the office of the 1st Presidency, but I’m pretty sure *someone* looks through the talks. But I don’t know for sure. I think it is clear that someone is taking a look-see.
BTW, Elder Poelman’s infamous talk was awesome as first given, and still pretty good after editing. I am sad that it was re-done.
HiJolly
Welcome to the site! “I no longer base my thoughts or feelings upon what a GA says, or what any scripture or doctrine may say. It’s now up to me to wrestle with it and work out my own interpretation. It’s liberating.”
Liberating, scary, invigorating, lonely. My wife is not on my journey, alas.
HiJolly
