Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
On a broader note, I think the answer for LDS should be “no” but we often think of blessings / commandments as transactional. I think this is what Kind Benjamin warns against in Mosiah 2:24 when he says as soon as we are blessed we are immediately indebted once again. DarkJedi wrote:
So what are your thoughts? Can we “buy” blessings by obedience?
I skimmed the replies and my thought may take this thread a different direction. DJ, if this isn’t where you’re headed feel free to ignore or delete.
From a literal perspective, I think the answer is “yes” based pm the the way LDS treat tithing and using a literal interpretation of the word “buy”. We cannot be baptized, receive the Melchizedek Priesthood, or go to the temple without paying tithing. One may argue that not everyone earns an income, and therefore doesn’t have to buy anything, but I argue that’s a minority. One may also argue that it’s not about “buying” anything and rather that it’s about obedience – but that argument can apply so broadly to most commandments that it implies the only valid reason to obey is to show obedience.
I have in-laws that give me Utah Mormon movies every single Christmas. Some are better than others and some are “solidly ok.” Maybe this one will be not terrible. I personally have mixed feelings towards Trek because I think they’d have a more genuine experience just going hiking for a week with firesides at night – but my two oldest daughters *loved* Trek even though both are very liberal for LDS kids. My stake’s Trek always have at least a few non-Mormons attending and I know of one who did get baptized – but most don’t. If the movie is real the non-Mormons will leave respecting Mormons a bit more but probably wouldn’t become baptized because of it.
Somehow I told my (non Mormon) doctor about Trek and he said that every teenager in the USA should do it. He said we could all use a jolt of appreciation of civilization. That comment has always stuck with me coming from a very educated non Mormon.
Rebel wrote:
Can I be working on the wow or be doing my best and still go ? What say all of you ?
Like others have said, the question is a straightforward yes or no. However, what the WoW actually encompasses is a matter of some debate. If you can claim with a clear conscience that drinking coffee is not against the WoW then by all means get a temple recommend. You don’t have to ask the bishop if coffee is ok, you decide. D&C 89 says hot drinks which we obviously don’t take literally because LDS drink a whole variety of hot drinks. Some consider decaf as coffee some don’t. My own grandparents drank decaf and held temple recommends without and ounce of guilt and they just didn’t tell anyone. I used to drink green tea and held a temple recommend because it was supposed to have health benefits. I ultimately gave up because it’s just easier to drink water.
Once an investigator asked me and the two missionaries I accompanied: “so I can drink a boiling mountain dew but not an iced coffee?” With a straight face they said yes that’s what we’re saying. This cemented in my mind that sometimes silly rules don’t have to be obeyed.
I told my stake president that during temple recommend interviews I conducted that I wasn’t preventing people from entering the temple if they ask about coffee or tea and he didn’t seem to care much. As Dande48 said it can be leadership roulette. My advice is do what you think is right.
This song was sung in my home and stake for several weeks. It’s meant to be lighthearted and silly. They keynote phrase is “I’m saving my armpits for my wife.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVKsd2PIBH0 I get that the phrase “modest is hot” is self-contradictory and not helpful, but the song is kind of funny.
My heart aches for him, his family, and all going through something similar. I have a very small sample size of 3 of mixed orientation marriages. Two failed spectacularly (ugly and mean divorce and using kids as bargaining chips) and one who so far is making it. I just can’t help but think we are on the wrong side of history here.
DarkJedi wrote:
overseeing Europe doesn’t necessarily mean living there.
Hi DJ,
Yes, I agree – but if he wanted to live in Europe he could. Oaks lived in the Philippines with his wife from 2002 to 2004 when he oversaw that area.
I’d be all “hey I want to preside over the South Pacific. You can find me correlating in Tahiti.”
You don’t have to give a reason – just say you are dealing with some personal challenges and you need to be released. If asked what they are just say “stuff I can’t talk about right now.” You can even say it with a smile and that you wish you could. DFU probably just wants to get away from his more orthodox brethren. He can probably go months at a time without seeing them if he lives in Europe. Fascinating book. It was recommended to me a couple of years ago by my aunt who is LDS and a counselor. She said that in her experience what this book says rings true on many levels. The thing that stuck with me was how many people meet the clinical definition of sociopath. The 4% figure means that every ward with 200 active members probably has 8-10 sociopaths at church on a given Sunday, some of whom are probably in leadership positions. Also they are very convincing and difficult to identify which makes it a little unsettling. nibbler wrote:
Roadrunner wrote:
My snarky comment for the day: the announcement that RMN has 116 grandchildren sounds positively polygamy-ish. That is so many kids, how can he possibly remember all their names?
All the boys are named Russell, Marion, or Jared and all the girls are named You.
Alternatively: He’s the prophet, and you can’t contradict the prophet. Your name is whatever he calls you.
C’mere Billy.
[no one looks up]
Billy, I said come here.
[whispered]
Go on son, your name is Billy now.
Thanks – this make me laugh!
My snarky comment for the day: the announcement that RMN has 116 grandchildren sounds positively polygamy-ish. That is so many kids, how can he possibly remember all their names? Hi Tica, The question about how to raise kids is m single biggest worry. My wife knows the extent of my questions and issues and the approach we’ve agreed on is to raise them in the church but that I will be completely open and honest with them. I’ve educated them about virtually every historical and doctrinal oddity with the exception of temple ordinances. Consequently all my kids know I’m more or less in the church to serve others and to support my wife. My disbelief doesn’t seem to persuade them either way at this point. They are very liberal for LDS so as they mature they will “get it” more.
Roy wrote:
I found the sketch to be inaccurate in some of the details and perhaps the strangest description of our religion ever given.
Yes very inaccurate. I’ve never actually heard we would get our own planets. I have heard we would create our own universes…
That being said the writers were trying to be funny but I can think of funnier Mormon doctrine than that.
Heber13 wrote:
RR…when you think back over the last 10 yrs since Hinckley passed…do you feel like much changed?I’m wondering if much changes on the outside, or if we become cynical on the inside and don’t think much changes. I think I’m thinking along similar lines as you regarding outlook on this change.
Hi Heber,
Not much has really changed and I guess that’s why I’m disappointed. In my opinion we could change for the better. I’ve changed – as they say “it’s not you, it’s me.” It’s a daily battle for me – to try to stay faithful and not let the cynicism take over.
