Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yes cwald, you have found me in a conundrum, I guess I will personally advocate for the Dali Lama in the next life, and anyone else who will may assist me (if of course we are saved as well). Once he passes on, I wonder how many LDS people will run and do his temple work, much like how Bob Marley’s, Abraham Lincoln’s, and Elvis Presley’s temple work has been done. But, would the Dali Lama accept it in the next life? I guess we both should have asked President Gordon B. Hinckley. President Hinckley in fact visited with the Dali Lama. Well, I guess it is too bad that President Hinckley passed away without us having the chance to ask him if the Dali Lama is a righteous person, and would be saved in the hereafter. Nevertheless, we do have this rubric to follow from the Book of Mormon: “For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to everyman, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thingwhich inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.” (Moroni 7:16) I also like verse 5 of the same chapter: “. . . by their works ye shall know them; for it their works be good, then they are good also. As far as I’m concerned the Dali Lama’s works are good. He lived in a land of Tibet that was encroached upon much like Jesus’ Jerusalem had been throughout history. The Dali Lama had to go into exile into India, a land that is only 3% Christian. The Dali Lama has done much good in the world and such good will be accounted “unto him as righteousness.” Yes, I believe the Dali Lama is a righteous man. Quote:cwald wrote, I can’t imagine the Dalia Lama going to hell anytime soon. Just my opinion.
I wasn’t saying that the Dali Lama, Buddha, or Mohammed were going to hell. I’m just saying that the only truly righteous person was Jesus Christ. The Dali Lama more than likely will be saved, just like an apostle has stated that Mother Teresa will be saved (General Conference 2009). Doctrinally speaking (section 76 Doctrine and Covenants), everyone will be saved except the sons of perdition. A testimony/belief in Christ is prerequisite for both the terrestrial and Celestial Kingdoms. Such inheritors of the Telesital kingdom experience hell for a thousand years, because of grave unrepentant sins, and they either deny Christ or don’t accept him/believe in him, yet they will be given a Kingdom of Glory that surpasses all human understanding in the Telestial Kingdom. I think that the Dali Lama has already accepted many of the teachings of Christ and probably realizes that Christ is the Son of God and even a Savior, but he probably is confused like Joseph Smith was, so he would rather just lead his people in the teachings of Buddha, which contain many important truths such as self-governance, six stages of suffering, and pre-mortal existence. I wish I could mediate and fast like Buddhists do, they are very spiritual people especially those who believe in Nicheren Buddhism-that prohibits idolatry (No fat Buddhas in their shrines). I have been to one of their meetings and in a sense felt very spiritually enlightened and hoped that their chant for world peace would make a difference. I know it gave me peace of mind and clarity. I have been to the Buddhist temple in Hacienda Heights, California on multiple occasions when I lived in the LA area. I enjoyed the grounds; there is much peace and tranquility there. The only things that bothered me were the multiple statues of Buddha that people bowed to, and some of the incense caused my eyes to water.
I have to admit, I like what Butters has said. I believe in a relative righteousness paradigm that is both need based and that God “is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” (Hebrew 11:6) Righteousness is impossible without Jesus Christ–the only truly righteous person. Without Christ we cannot be saved. I heard an Institute teacher say that within the Grace versus works paradigm we are better off leaning to the side of Grace. We also have the scripture written by Nephi that essentially states we are saved after all we can do. This is relative to anyone and everyone depending on where we are it in the road to discipleship. If we deem ourselves as righteous then I think we are probably going to be damned, because of some type of “holier than thou” attitude. However, if we deem ourselves as good, or the best that we can be at the moment, then I think most of us out there are righteous. I am grateful God puts adversity in the balance, and give us agency to pick between good, better, and best. Perhaps it is the Spirit that will guide us into the best for us, but without the Spirit perhaps we can only make it to good or better on our own merits. One scenario I would like to propose is that of a poor person who has no shelter, nor food, and does not have sufficient clothing. Is this person prepared to hear the Gospel? I would say no. His/her basic needs are not met. I think we need to take in consideration Manslow’s hierarchy of needs in relationship to our fellowmen. Such a person needs God to bless him for his lack of food, shelter, and clothing before he can be judged entirely on ‘how righteous he/she is.” I think the poor needy and those that have a void in life are the test for the so-called righteous. A so-called “righteous” sister or brother in the church, if truly “in-tune” would bless the lives of those with deficits so they can then live, or embrace the gospel to live a righteous life. A sort of pay-it-forward paradigm would work out well here. If righteousness means “free from sin,” then none of us are righteous. If righteousness means doing good relative to our station in life and abilities, then it is a relative term that cannot be quantified by man alone. Quantifiable is an absurd statement since Christ exercised an infinite atonement. So any negative/deficit would then be swallowed up by an infinite atonement, as long as such an atonement was not rejected.
Personally, I did not feel whole after my divorce. But I don’t think it was entirely on “unrighteousness.” I had a need that needed to be filled. I am mainly talking of companionship and the completeness of a family, which I longed for after an unwanted divorce. To me this was the ideal that I missed and I wanted to feel whole again. I didn’t like being a single parent, nor alone in my journey in life, and wanted to solve my problems. I believe God helped me do so. I perceived this as part of the next step of Manslow’s hierarchy of needs, that falls within the realm of “health and well being.” I did exercise faith through dating different women and using the internet to find Mrs. Right. It was a goal that I committed to and then I felt God guided me in my decision. Am I more righteous for it? No, I would say I feel more blessed and complete, but perhaps now I can affect more righteousness or goodness in the world because my needs are met. Now, I can embark on belonging, the third tier of Manslow’s hierarchy of needs. Once we are at this third tier, I think we are in a better position to bless the lives of others–otherwise, I feel that we are, or ought to be on the receiving end of the righteousness/goodness of others. I feel that I belong in a ward of the Church (not completely), but I do exist and interact on a limited basis with others. I feel I belong more adequately in LDS culture because I am a married man. But, more importantly I belong to a woman who loves me and I love her. But now, I must do more to help others and serve others to be considered righteous. I don’t want to be a leader or an administrator because then I would be tempted to get a “holier than thou complex.” Church leadership positions always made me feel more egocentric than I should be. I feel more blessed to be without such things in life.
I feel like a reformed Mormon Pharisee. Before my divorce, I would check off everything and then compare myself to others as: “I am not good enough,” or “at least I’m not like that!” Sometimes, I wonder why I am even still in the Church, but then again, I think it is because of this one thing: My belief in and faith in Jesus Christ. One of my favorite scriptures is found in Galatians 2:20 and it was actually made into a Christian song recently. I quote: I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live: yet not I, but Christ livith in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. (21) I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if the righteousness [my italics] come [italicized in original] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain [my interpretation had atoned in vain]. Because of this I finally understand what it means to take upon myself the name of the Son of God. He had to bear his cross, while I bear mine own through adversity. If I rely on him, I will get to where he wants me to be, which is on his right hand. Essentially, we need to form a symbiotic relationship with the Savior through covenant. In my life as I seek to do the will of the Lord, I am“Upheld by my Righteous omnipotent hand.” LDS Hymns 85 “How Firm a Foundation.”
“O be wise, what can I say more.” http://www.fairlds.org I too am happy with the hyper link to the Sunstone article, that answered a lot of questions for me, but also reconfirmed the greatness of Mormonism in the pursuit of all truth and friendship and living in harmony with our fellowmen. Additionally, I found an extension of the friendship and relief and the pursuit of some type of theocracy or utopian ideal that is founded upon similar principles. In my pursuit to understand the Council of Fifty, I searched Wikipedia and then went from a hyper link to a BYU Studies article entitled “Theory and Practice of Church and State During the Brigham Young Era” by J. Keith Melville, dated 1960- BYU Studies3 (1):33-55. Within this article was a quote by Joseph Smith during the Nauvoo era of the Church that caught my attention. Joseph coined the phrase THEODEMOCRACY. Such a concept had eluded me up to this point. In relationship to Constitutional matters and the true governance of Church and State within a functioning political realm, that this is a true fundamental principle of Mormonism. I quote Joseph Smith: “I go emphatically, virtuously, and humanely, for a THEODEMOCRACY, where God and the people hold the power to conduct the affairs of men in righteousness.” This quote originally came from Times and Seasons-V, p. 510. I know that from Joseph Smith on this has been part of the agenda of the brethren in the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve for a long time, even with the end to the Council of Fifty, it seems that as members of the Church we are supposed to vote for people that carry such an ideal in their hearts and minds. Additionally, the original Council of Fifty was not only consisting of Latter-Day Saints. Although this concept of THEODEMOCRACY may appear to be missing in political discourse, I believe it is a fundamental principle of Mormonism. Prayer is a true principle of Mormonism. Prayer is the soul’s longing to be with deity again and to commune with the infinite.
As Daniel prayed against the decree of those princes that sought to go against him, it was amazing how the Lord sent an angel to shut up the mouths of the Lions. The principle of prayer withstood any legal decree, thus it must be a true principle of Mormonism.
I would feel that after two decades of discipleship (after the age of 
that I have had some experience with following the Spirit down new paths. For instance, I have had the moment of truth, or an epiphany or two that has brought me to some realization that I must pursue a certain course. However, the natural man within me on at least two occasions thwarted what I thought I spiritually thought I was to do. I think my agency and how I interpret spiritual promptings sometimes screws up the process. I believe I enter into a rational dialog with the promptings and at times rationalize myself out of them, but then sometimes I will rationalize myself into them. I had a prompting to attend the Y, and I did not. Yet, after attending another school for four years, I had a prompting to finish a MA program at the same school. However, I bombed a pretty hefty interview for a state department job, and then gave up a great interview opportunity somewhere else because I thought I was supposed to serve my fellow man; Religious zeal sure screws up life sometimes. Perhaps it is happening to me again. I feel that my job/career is slipping. I have tendencies to think and go down different paths that are well intentioned, but now I feel like my career is taking the back burner. I don’t feel satisfied in my career, but I also don’t feel supported in it either. I have had promptings to do something else, but I am afraid of losing my money and benefits. But, does doing what I want to do selfish-but then I feel it is in alignment with what the spirit is telling me. However, I feel I am obligated to support my family, but I feel that I am supposed to embark on a different path. I hate being in these either/or situations. Perhaps I need professional help. Please advise out there if you have been in a similar situation. This whole scenario is affecting my relationship with my wife. I feel that similar issues became external forces that weakened my first marriage (I didn’t have a supported wife in the path I was supposed to go), and then I was just that much further off course. I just feel that I am out of spiritual alignment again. I made goals, but I am still not satisfied with my situation. Nevertheless, part of me is just happy to have a job and have an income after being a year out of work.I thank you all for your reply. I will adjust my perceptions and “do what I can.” I am finally happy that my motivation is doing what I know I can do, and not going beyond just that. Thanks again, Jamison
The only Stephen R. Covey book that I ever liked was one of his earliest he published through Deseret Book entitled, The Spiritual Root of Human Relations. Everything else is watered down philosophical psycho-babble. I read his 7 habits of highly effective people and only really liked or remember the sharpening the saw part and the writing new texts part. Organizational Behavior is great, but not the solution. My mom lives by checklists and has done a bang up job as a Stake Primary President and Relief Society president and ward missionary. Even though the irony is that my mom is the source from where I obtained the 7 habits of highly effective people. The best books that I have read on “applied Mormonism/discipleship come from the late Neal A. Maxwell. Stephen R. Covey’s 7 Events of the Restoration was a waste of my time. So yeah, I wouldn’t put Stephen R. Covey on essential Mormonism for anything.
@Brian, I see your point it seems that some of those ideas such as Adam-god theory, blood atonement, blacks/lamanites were big ideas/opinions/perceptions elaborated upon or developed by Brigham Young that many of his associates in the hierarchy of the Church opposed. I guess I have a lot to learn about my own church’s history. I would even gather (although I have no real background knowledge) then that polygamy as an ideal must have even evolved into something much different under Brigham Young than when Joseph Smith was the prophet. This makes a lot of sense to me. Truly men are given much agency to govern themselves and others that are within their sphere of influence. Men may be prophets, but they are also dualistic in nature as “just men.” I have no qualms about this issue. I’m sure it even happens today to some degree. I have heard many differing opinions about many different things and I just take some with a grain of salt, and others I may agree with slightly, while I will sometimes hold to my own views ’til doomsday. I don’t think a lot of people in general would have issue with the polygamy idea nowadays. I just don’t see how it is “fundamental” to religion at all. Looking at the paradigm of Hindu, Muslim, and ancient Israel and the practice of polygamy, I can see no perception or concept of how the practice of polygamy is “fundamental.” If the term fundamental is used as I perceive it, then the Book of Mormon, the concept of a living prophet, and the first vision would be the fundamentals or basic doctrines that make Mormonism unique amongst the plethora of Christianity. Even looking at sanctioned polygamy in early LDS history, I don’t really see it as paramount; it was a practice. It worked with some people and didn’t work with others. There were abuses, and then there were successes with it on how many children were raised properly and how many wives did love their husbands and how some husbands cared for and took care of their wives. What I have issue with and what really irks me are the rapes where girls under 18 are wedded; The monopolization of polygamy by the leaders that exile the young men that would have no chance under their hierarchy of polygamy, so they have no recourse but to leave. These issues are horrifying and make the Mormon Polygamist sects (I refuse to use the term fundamentalist), look more evil than they are (and rightfully so). Nevertheless, I think America needs to have a time to look at the thousands of dollars that are wasted on child custody issues, divorces, and remarriages that allow serial monogamy to go on without number. At least the polygamists supposedly take care of multiple households, whereas many serial monogamists will dump one family to start another, usually without any negative consequences on the victor who usually had more money in the divorce court to start with. Many spouses get out of their financial obligations to children and spouses until the ORS catches up with them. Maybe if the polygamists cleaned up their act, then their practices of marriage would serve as a valid example to the screwed up dysfunctional families and serial monogamists that make up America.
I found an excellent article on this topic published through the Religious Studies Center at BYU in Volume 7 number 1 (2006) entitled “Welcoming All of God’s Children in his house”. This article is accessible on the web. It pretty much agreed with my sentiments exactly, I just wish it was codified or followed by the general church population. I always like Oliver for the fact that he was the second Elder of this dispensation and that he was trying to temporally improve himself, like we are admonished to by the brethren; to get more education and to better ourselves financially so we can serve better in the kingdom. One thing I will always admire about him is the fact that he did come back. Oliver’s attitude gives me the strength to continue on even though times get rough. Euhemerus wrote, Quote:According to Ehrman (and many other textual critics of the NT) the story of the woman caught in adultery was not in the original and hence should not be in the bible. That’s the whole point.
Because of the 5500 different variant texts of the New Testament that are in existence, I don’t fully agree with this point. Brian Hauglid a professor of religion of BYU stated in a paper on textual criticism the following: (Religious Studies Center volume 8 no. 2 “Searching For God’s Word in New Testament Textual Criticism”)
“One other important example of a large group of verses not found in most manuscripts is the story of the adulterous woman in John 7:53–8:11. Interestingly, the account is inserted in five other locations in various manuscripts, such as after John 7:44, 21:25, and even after Luke 21:38. Textual critics argue that the vocabulary and style of these verses differ considerably from the rest of the Gospel of John and that it interrupts the sequence of 7:52 and 8:12. Yet scholars generally agree that the antiquity of the story and its place in Christianity result in a beloved account that merits it a double-bracketed place in the Greek New Testament.[29] Again, that John did not write these verses does not mean that the story of the adulterous woman is not true. The question of addition and omission is an important aspect of the textual critics’ work of determining whether a text is original.”
I just wanted to clarify that perhaps this story was taken out of another Biblical passage in an attempt to harmonize the four gospels by a scribe and that is why it was inserted in John. It is a lot like the last 12 verses of the book of Mark, they are true in harmony with other gospels on the resurrection, but perhaps not written by Mark but inserted by a scribe.
