Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Mike wrote:
Here is a webinar that may help.
http://www.familytreewebinars.com/watch-video-free.php?webinar_id=237 This is from the legacy website.
:thumbup: Quote:“We all (tend to) assume that our experience is normal, and since we so often hear “the Church is the same everywhere you go,” we are quick to generalize from our experience of “normal” to a prescription for what should be normative for everyone.”
:thumbup: There is an old saying, “Catholics say the pope is infallible but don’t really believe it; Mormons say the prophet is fallible but don’t really believe it.” Pres Uchtdorf said in Oct 2013
And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.
I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes.
In the title page of the Book of Mormon we read, “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.”
This is the way it has always been and will be until the perfect day when Christ Himself reigns personally upon the earth. (“Come, Join with Us”, Dieter F. Uchtdorf, Oct 2013)
If the membership at large were more realistic in their expectations of their leaders, less would have their faith shaken when leader inevitably disappoints us.
What we may be seeing is the church’s effort to inoculate against unsavory facts of church history. And some are running a fever. And some may not survive it.
Some think that the church is going too slow. I am willing to give our leaders the benefit of the doubt and trust God to save us all.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Shawn, go back and read E. Oaks’ talk about PH again with that view in mind and see what you think. I think he’s doing more than just innovating; I think he has very clearly in mind how polygamy fits in with the priesthood. And bear in mind that he’s on his second marriage, so mentally, he’s already a polygamist.
How does Elder Oaks fit polygamy with the priesthood?
Old-Timer wrote:I have no doubt whatsoever the parts of the endowment that obviously are sexist will be changed, and probably in my lifetime (assuming I live to an average age) – but I am not confident it will be “soon”. The most senior leadership will experience a huge change in the next 10 years. It will be interesting to see what happens then.
This seems reasonable.hawkgrrrl wrote:The key in seeing how much the temple is tied to polygamy is in noting the differences between promises made to men and promises made to women.
Could this not just be chalked up to sexism and not necessarily polygamy? It seems reasonable to attribute polygamy to sexism.
Thank you Shawn for that reference to the Terrible Questions. I have never seen that before . These remind me of when my son asked who created God? He was never satisfied. For weeks and even months off and on again these kind of questions would come up. To be honest I have never been satisfied by the answers I have gotten except for the question I got as an answer. “What difference does it make if I know exactly what the origin of God is?”
The more pertinent question are:
– “Is there really a God?”
– “Is He really all powerful, all knowing and perfect in every way?”
– “He really loves me knowing perfectly who I am in my deepest, darkest place?”
– “Is my life acceptable to Him?”
These really are the three things that are necessary for salvation.
Let us here observe, that three things are necessary, in order that any rational and intelligent being may exercise faith in God, unto life and salvation:
First, the idea that he actually exists.
Second, a correct idea of his character, perfections and attributes.
Third, an actual knowledge that the course of life which he is pursuing, is according to his will. (Lectures on Faith 3:2-5)
My oldest was endowed a few months ago. I was very aware to let him know what he was getting into. I reviewed with him the five covenants to principles of the gospel we make in the temple. To keep
– the law of God
– the law of sacrifice
– the law of the gospel
– the law of chastity
– the law of consecration
It is not a secret. I think there should be more transparency about what covenants we are going to make. I am grateful that the church put out the article and video on the temple garment and robes. It came out after he took out his endowments.
The biggest thing that threw him was the unusual temple robes and (i guess) the ritual that goes with them. And he was not thrown off much from what I could gather. I made sure that I stayed close to him in the celestial room, in case he had questions or concerns. We attended several time before his mission started and I followed up.
As far as the original question. Depending on the situation and person asking you might say something like.
Quote:Do you mind if I ask you a question? (wait respectfully for an answer)
Why are you asking me?
– Are you trying to guilt me into being more active? etc
I am doing my best based on how I understand my experience with the endowment.
I am following my conscience.
Basically have a heartfelt conversation with them about your situation. Who knows what good will come from that? Vulnerability is powerful stuff.This is one of my favorite talks on grace. Brad Wilcox wrote:
A BYU student once came to me and asked if we could talk. I said, “Of course. How can I help you?”She said, “I just don’t get grace.”
I responded, “What is it that you don’t understand?”
She said, “I know I need to do my best and then Jesus does the rest, but I can’t even do my best.”
She then went on to tell me all the things she should be doing because she’s a Mormon that she wasn’t doing.
She continued, “I know that I have to do my part and then Jesus makes up the difference and fills the gap that stands between my part and perfection. But who fills the gap that stands between where I am now and my part?”
She then went on to tell me all the things that she shouldn’t be doing because she’s a Mormon, but she was doing them anyway.
Finally I said, “Jesus doesn’t make up the difference. Jesus makes all the difference. Grace is not about filling gaps. It is about filling us.”
Seeing that she was still confused, I took a piece of paper and drew two dots—one at the top representing God and one at the bottom representing us. I then said, “Go ahead. Draw the line. How much is our part? How much is Christ’s part?”
She went right to the center of the page and began to draw a line. Then, considering what we had been speaking about, she went to the bottom of the page and drew a line just above the bottom dot.
I said, “Wrong.”
She said, “I knew it was higher. I should have just drawn it, because I knew it.”
I said, “No. The truth is, there is no line. Jesus filled the whole space. He paid our debt in full. He didn’t pay it all except for a few coins. He paid it all. It is finished.”
She said, “Right! Like I don’t have to do anything?”
“Oh no,” I said, “you have plenty to do, but it is not to fill that gap. We will all be resurrected. We will all go back to God’s presence. What is left to be determined by our obedience is what kind of body we plan on being resurrected with and how comfortable we plan to be in God’s presence and how long we plan to stay there.”
(“
His Grace Is Sufficient
I like even better the way he shares it,http://youtu.be/yLXr9it_pbY?t=2m43s .And I like the parable of the bicycle from “
Believing ChristOld-Timer wrote:Read the following post. Now. It has application not only to her specific topic but to faith crises / transitions, as well.
Seriously. Read it. Now.
http://dandelionmama.com/2014/10/29/modern-family/
:clap: Mike wrote:At first glance, the word apologist sounds (& feels) like a weakness. It’s not at all.
:thumbup: SilentDawning wrote:I think you could simply give them an upper age limit, and when they reach that age limit, new positions get filled just as they do when the prophet or one of the apostles die. There would be no succession issue
As long as the first presidency and quorum of the twelve decided together on a decision like this, I would have no problem with it.
nibbler wrote:Probably because the benefits outweigh the negatives.
Lifelong calls completely removes the politics of succession. The apostles don’t have to worry about politics and the members don’t either, it never comes into question. It also takes the decision out of leader’s hands and gives the decision making power to an entity that is completely outside of their control. That could be viewed as dodging responsibility but that’s really what sets the stage for proving that there is no impropriety.
I agree
