Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
A key question regarding ‘saved’: What, exactly, are we saved from? Christianity from about the third century onward (including in our Church) would answer this as ‘saved from judgment’. Jesus suffered in place of us. We can avoid punishment by His Atonement. We are fixing something wrong about us in order to be accepted by God.
Christianity in the first century would say ‘saved from the corruption of the world’. Jesus’ death and resurrection leads the way for putting away our nature and embracing spirituality. We can become spiritual children of God through Jesus’ Atonement. We are leaving behind stuff that doesn’t matter and embracing something good in order to become closer to God.
In the modern doctrine, it is God’s view of us that we are trying to change.
In the original doctrine, it is our view of God we are trying to change.
My own views, not representative of the Church, BRM, JFS or any other, though I draw a lot of my thoughts from Paul: Saved – this comes from the latin
Salvatus, which is the past participle form of Salvare, like Savedis to Save. And note the connection to Christ. We are “ saved” by the “ Savior” to achieve “ salvation“. Even clearer in Spanish, which I know some of you speak: Salvar, Salvado, El Salvador, Salvacion. So, whatever we get by virture of Christ via the Atonement is the act of being saved. Let the reader determine what they get from the Atonement. For me, I think of it as freeing from an earth-bound existence into a liberated spiritually-bound existence. Exalted – The end result of a spiritual life. In LDS view, this is the crowning (literally) achievement of our existence. Since I believe there is no afterlife, I have to project this onto our present life. I don’t think there is any “end result” of our lives, but rather a sequence of successful steps toward being the kind of person we want to be. To me, I think of Exaltation as the unattainable perception of Godliness. Though we can never get there, we can approach it, and in the attempt, we cultivate our own attributes into something better than if we had never tried. Feel free to apply that concept to eternal progression in the afterlife, if that suits you.
I liked the out-of-jail / knighted analogy. I would also say, being saved is like getting accepted to college in spite of bad grades in high school, being exalted is like then graduating
Suma Cum Laudewith a PhD. As for the passage you referenced in D&C 19 regarding “endless punishment” I think all it’s trying to say is that punishment is from God, but it doesn’t go on forever. We don’t burn in hell with no end. I don’t think that specifically supports the idea of eternal progression from one kingdom of glory to another, but it can be interpreted that way, if you like. I would say it’s akin to JS’s view of repentance and forgiveness. You might have to go through a lot of anguish during repentance, but once completed, it is forgotten. JS was a very forgiving fella. He wasn’t someone to hold a grudge against the penitent. See his interactions with WWPhelps. (Phelps betrayed JS, and his actions were part of what sent JS to Liberty Jail. Yet, when Phelps had a change of heart, JS welcomed him back, saying, “Believing your confession to be real, and your repentance genuine, I shall be happy once again to give you the right hand of fellowship, and rejoice over the returning prodigal. …‘Come on, dear brother, since the war is past, For friends at first, are friends again at last.’ Yours as ever, Joseph Smith, Jun.”)
Hi SD. Fascinating situation. Thanks, for sharing, and I look forward to hearing how it goes. Couple of random thoughts…
SilentDawning wrote:
He said he wanted “to make them think”.
For me, I don’t love when people take it as their mission to point out things to “make them think” (whoevertheyare). IMO, it would be a much better world if we all had the attitude of “I’d like to hear what someone different from me has to say — to give me something to think about.” Also, I’d be a little worried that your friend is setting a trap for the missionaries with you as the legitimizer.
Of course, I realize that “making them think” is what the missionaries themselves are trying to do. So, sure, it’s a double standard. Except I don’t love the missionary approach either (at this stage in my life) and would much prefer that the Church operated more on an open invitation to the interested, rather than a door to door, made-you-think campaign.
If it were me, and merely as a courtesy to the missionaries who are donating their time, while their peers back home enjoying the last couple of years of their youth, I would probably tell the missionaries that this is more of a good-will call with an opportunity to educate others about the Church, but these are not investigators. i’m certain that they would still jump at the chance, even with that understanding.
SilentDawning wrote:
What should I do if they ask me to bear testimony?
I would be concerned about that as well. I have turned down callings before, for example, explaining that I can’t be in a position where my testimony is required. This is one where I would speak to both missionaries at the same time and explain that “I don’t want you to call on me to bear testimony. I will interject if I have anything to add. Don’t call on me. Do we have a deal?”SilentDawning wrote:
…but then he told me he had approached a mutual acquaintance of mine to also take a missionary lesson…I found out from the second person that the first friend of mine also said “it would help SD” if they listened to the missionaries.
Wow, this really is a ‘weird’ situation. I’m sure you would like to convey to them that this isn’t an MLM. Maybe one way to do this would be to kick off the meeting this weekend with a clarifying statement that you convey with a smile and a chuckle… something like: “I’m sure you both know this is a volunteer Church, and we don’t get any extra credit for this meeting, but I’m glad you both wanted to learn a bit more about the Church. And just so you know, these two missionaries are here as volunteers. They aren’t paid and, in fact, they are paying their own way to be here… they don’t like to make a big deal about it, but I can.”Roy wrote:
nibbler wrote:
Beginning with October’s general conference and continuing thereafter, the Saturday evening sessions will be discontinued. Previously, a Saturday evening session was held for women (in October) and priesthood holders (in April). This change is being made because all sessions of general conference are now available to anyone who desires to watch or listen.
I am not sure that I really understand the reasoning here. Because all sessions of GC are available to everyone then we can no longer have sessions that are dedicated to issues faced more by women or faced more by men? Does similar logic follow that if men can view BYU Women’s conference or Time Out for Women then we should no longer have those things? Haven’t we been printing the priesthood session of GC in the Ensign magazine (for anybody to read) since forever? How does this make sense?
That’s the stated reason. I suspect it’s more along the lines of trying not to be exclusionary. Meetings for only women, meetings for only men, girls from 8 and up, boys from 12 and up… it’s just unnecessary, and I think it’s good for the Church to move beyond this. I get the issues facing men/women. It used to be that men and women were very different, but nowadays, if I’m cut off by an aggressive SUV, it’s more likely to be a woman behind the wheel. And in any case, I think increasingly, the issues overlap, and don’t we all hope for a day when men and women are treated the same? This is a step in that direction.SamBee wrote:
I know this is a stupid question, but how would they know it was three days?
If you take the BofM as literal, then they didn’t need to count the hours to know it was three days. Zenos (as recounted in 1Nephi) predicted “three days of darkness” and Samuel the Lamanite said in Helaman that darkness would cover the face of the earth for “three days”.When the darkness dissipated, all that would have to happen is for the remaining faithful to ask each other, “how long was that darkness?” and the answer would be “three days” because that’s what fulfilled the prophecies.
In the same way, Jesus offered the sign of Jonah, which He Himself interpreted to mean that He would lie in the tomb for three days and three nights as Jonah was in the Fish’s belly for three days and three nights. Because of that, we talk of Jesus rising after three days. But a lot of people now think of it as a figure of speech meaning part of three days, not literally 72 hours, the way we would interpret that statement in English. So Friday afternoon to Sunday morning still works, even through our three day concept doesn’t.
Hi Katzpur, When reading historical or scriptural accounts, it’s very common for us to compact the timeline in our minds. Generations go by in a single chapter and we don’t easily expand the time in our perception. Just by way of example we generally recognize the ministry of Jesus to have been about three years. Yet, you can read the account of it in Mark in an afternoon. Think of what you were doing three years ago, and how much water has gone under the bridge since then. There is a long arch to the story of Jesus’ ministry, teachings, and death. But, we commonly concatenate it down to a brief outline.
The case of 3 Nephi is a great example. In our minds, destruction and darkness, and Jesus appears as the darkness dissipates. It’s tight and dramatic. But, in 3 Nephi 8, we are told that the destruction came at the beginning of the 34th year, (“in the thirty and fourth year, in the first month, on the fourth day of the month, there arose a great storm…”). After it was over, and before the darkness dissipated, there were people that had been spared who heard the voice from heaven.
After the darkness dispersed, these people had time to mourn their dead, and turn to the Lord in joy… and to gather in Bountiful “in the ending of the thirty and fourth year” (3Ne10:18), where they were discussing the recent calamity, and then Jesus appeared.
Minyan Man wrote:
On Own Now wrote:
As to whether stories are true… I guess, to me,it doesn’t matter how true a story is. The point of these stories is not to relate history. When you hear these stories from Church leaders, the purpose is always to encourage behavior that will achieve the same results.
Are you saying that we can tell
anystory in a sacrament talk as long as it encourages moral behavior or action?
Since I’m an atheist, I don’t categorize Church narrative as true or not true. I think it’s all a matter of personal perspective/interpretation. Just as an example, when I’m teaching the NT, I often use a phrase like, “Luke says” or “We are told that”… For me, I’d be comfortable telling any story I thought was true and relevant. If others tell a story that they think is true and relevant, but I don’t, it’s unlikely that I will walk out mid-talk.I think there are two aspects to this discussion: 1) how true are these stories? (the subject of the podcast) and 2) Are they dangerous? (the title of this thread)
Truth is a sliding scale. We have right in the bible stories like the talking ass, the early humans living hundreds of years, Noah and the Flood, Job, Jonah, and my personal favorite: The Lord smote 185K Assyrians “and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses.”
Other stories… are these true?
– Did Jesus walk on water? It depends on who you ask.
– Did JS see God/Jesus? It depends on who you ask.
– Did the Jaredites travel from the old world to the new in submersible barges? It depends on who you ask.
– Did the Sisters in Kirtland donate fine china for the temple plaster? Apparently not, but it depends on who you ask, in the same way that the items above depend on who you ask. Even if that fine detail isn’t accurate, there are plenty of similar true stories. One Kirtland convert later wrote of their beautiful Kirtland home with it’s lovely garden and concluded with: “When Mormonism came, the house went.”
But are these stories dangerous? Maybe that also depends on who you ask. To me, no, I don’t think exaggerated stories like the Kirtland Temple story are dangerous. I’m not saying that I give the Church a pass on stories like that, but it is human nature for stories to grow. Inside and outside the Church. I thought the crickets and seagulls story from the podcast was a great example. It’s not that it didn’t happen, it was just in a larger context and interpreted by people with little experience in the area. The story grew from there.
The only faith promoting stories that are dangerous, true or not, are those that are told in order to elicit some behavior that is itself dangerous. We are often told stories (either by leaders or by each other) of sacrifices made that resulted in blessings. These often come in the form of sacrificing for the Church (ex: tithing) but also in the form of submission to the prophet (ex: polygamy). Our culture is one that highly values strict obedience, and these stories give rationale to the irrational.
– Did some family receive blessings for paying tithing when they didn’t have enough money for food? It depends on who you ask… but, either way, does that mean that the person who hears the story should risk their child’s welfare to pay tithing? No.
As to whether stories are true… I guess, to me, it doesn’t matter how true a story is. The point of these stories is not to relate history. When you hear these stories from Church leaders, the purpose is always to encourage behavior that will achieve the same results. See my Tithing post earlier in this thread. From that standpoint, I hold that they can be dangerous by promoting reckless behavior with expectation of counter-intuitive results. Perhaps the Church should only relay these stories with a disclaimer in flashing text at the bottom of the screen stating: “Past performance is not indicative of future results”.
I think faith-promoting-stories can sometimes convey a mentality that prioritizes spirituality over personal finances in a very reckless way. As Roy pointed out, tithing is a major area of focus for these, and seems to come up again and again.
A few years ago, in GC, this talk was given:
In it, Elder Pratt gives a faith promoting story that involves paying tithing even though that money would have provided education for the children of a poor family, living in “hard times”. Tithing was prioritized over education. Of course, miraculously, money arrived to offset the tithing payment, and the kids were able to go to school after all. Then the talk specifically draws the parallel from that story to our lives; we need to be faithful just like they were, and pay our tithing, before any other consideration. A specific phrase Elder Pratt used was “Pay it first”. It was the only use of that phrase in GC in modern times (going back to the 70’s).
Just a year later, the Church published an updated
For the Strength of the Youth. In the section on tithing, the Church used that same phrase, “Pay it first”, turning the GC talk with a faith promoting story into policy: Quote:Pay it first, even when you think you do not have enough money to meet your other needs. — For the Strength of the Youth, 2012
The same year that that new guidance was published, this occurred:
On Own Now wrote:
Today, in SM, a Stake High Counselor spoke. His topic was faith. He told a story regarding tithing that made my chest tighten. He related how he and his wife had realized that they did not have enough money in the bank to pay tithing as tithing settlement neared. So, they borrowed money from the bank in order to pay tithing… and that it was “putting our future in the Lord’s hands”.
Obviously, it worked out for them, and they were glad they had borrowed money to pay tithing.
A few months later, the Church itself told the story of a poor family in El Salvador, via an article in the Ensign. This family didn’t have much income and explained to their bishop that “we always come up short.” The Bishop’s advice was:
Quote:If paying tithing means that you can’t pay for water or electricity, pay tithing. If paying tithing means that you can’t pay your rent, pay tithing. Even if paying tithing means that you don’t have enough money to feed your family, pay tithing. The Lord will not abandon you. — Ensign, December, 2012
Of course, after paying their tithing, the wife, who was working, got promoted, and the husband, who had been unemployed, found a new job.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2012/12/sacred-transformations?lang=eng Dangerous? I’m cautious about using that label, because it is often used to shoot down free thought, as in so-and-so’s views are dangerous. But, in this case… yeah, I think it is. I think it is reckless at a minimum, and puts faithful people in financial danger to state as a matter of faith that they must pay tithing even if they don’t have money enough to meet their other needs, such as: sending young children to school, avoiding debt, paying basic utility bills, paying rent, or even buying food.
The other factor here is whether you have a spouse who doesn’t drink coffee for religious reasons. I first want to talk about that as an issue disconnected from the benefits or needs from a health perspective. For myself, I don’t drink (alcohol). Nor do I drink coffee. Is either immoral? No. Personally, I don’t have any concern for the WoW. I don’t have a temple recommend… I don’t plan to get one. My motivation, in part is the cost. I can’t imagine spending 7 bucks for a coffee at Starbucks. But, to a larger degree, my motivation is that I live with someone (my wife) who is a believer and who adheres to the WoW, and I don’t want to impose on her. Now, of course, lots of people reading this will say that I’m letting her impose on me, but I don’t see it that way. We both lived the WoW when we met, dated, married and raised a family. After a long time, I went through a FC and became no longer bound to the WoW… but she didn’t. So, our prior life was to follow the WoW. Now, she still is following the WoW and I am doing so ‘externally’ without the need, command, or motivation that I once had, and I do that in deference for her and her beliefs. It’s not simply a way to keep the peace. It’s about respecting what we both accepted a priori. That’s my way of thinking. Conversely, I’ve known people who as soon as they have a FC, they start drinking and bringing it home. Unfortunately, this creates a physical representation of the divide between a believing and non-believing spouse and frequently does not end well (cause or effect, though, is a question).
Adding in a health reason for it obviously puts it on a different level, but I think if I went to a doc who said I need to consume a Coors Light with every meal, my first reaction would be to ask what other way I could get the same result. If the doc said, no other way, only then would I discuss it with my wife, and I can guarantee you that she would run out and buy a case for me that same day.
Those are general thoughts that have nothing to do with you or your situation… and which are only valid in my own situation.
TinSoldier, I admire you for your ongoing fight. I hope that in all you do, you can find peace with your situation. A close family member of mine is a cancer fighter, too, and I know that it’s hard to describe to others and difficult to grasp fully until you go through it. I’ll raise a cold one (diet coke, that is) to you tonight.
Update regarding the Manti Temple and its renovation: “As we have continued to seek the direction of the Lord on this matter,” President Nelson said, “we have been impressed to modify our earlier plans for the Manti Utah Temple so that the pioneer craftsmanship, artwork and character will be preserved, including the painted murals loved by so many. We will leave those murals where they are located now — inside the Manti Utah Temple.”
Presumably, in order to keep the pioneer form of the Manti Temple, and yet accommodate the area with a larger temple capacity, RMN has announced a temple in Ephraim.
https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/ephraim-utah-temple-manti-temple-renovation According to RAR at the end of the following video, this modification to earlier plans regarding Manti and the new Ephraim Temple resulted from a revelation from Jesus Christ.
if you think of faith as how you see the cosmos, then I don’t think it’s a choice. I believe that dinosaurs are extinct; I can’t convince myself to think they are still roaming the earth, no matter how hard I might try. If you think of faith as what you do with your views, then I do think it’s a choice. I believe in the Golden Rule, for example, but that doesn’t mean I always live it. Adhering to it takes conscious effort sometimes.
In LDS thought, I believe ‘faith’ is subconsciously tied to action more than belief. Belief is a given, agency follows. From a Church perspective, everyone in the Church believes, but some are more “faithful” than others.. Anyone can have belief just by opening up to it, because it is there sort of like sunshine. For example, if you pray about the BofM, you are guaranteed an answer. “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally.” “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” But faith is what you do with it… In LDS vernacular, considerize the phrase “exercise faith”. Faith is an activity, rather than an attribute. Ergo, it’s a choice.
I think this is what makes most members think of not believing as a deficiency and as “lazy and lax”-ness as causes for faith crisis.
ldt, One thing I wonder about is that D&C76, that you referenced, does not use the term “Degrees of Glory”… rather, it talks about the “Glory of the Telestial” and the “Telestial World”, etc.
I’ve wondered if the terminology of “degrees” might have come from Freemasonry, but of course, that’s just terminology, not theology. So I wouldn’t find it faith-shattering to find that JS used terms from FM to describe what he was trying to say.
One interesting tidbit (interesting to me, anyway) is that the D&C76 preface info, which was a 20th Century addition, uses the phrase, “degree of salvation”, even though D&C76 does not.
