Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Dark Jedi: I’m flattered. You said that I was so worried about others. My wife says that I only think of myself.
What I was trying to get across is, If somebody has a knowledge of LDS doctrine and is a member of the LDS Church, why in the world would they separate themselves from an ordinance that is absolutely crirical to their salvation? If they would think about it, nothing but nothing is important enough to leave the Chruch. But If they insist on doing that, OK!? It’s fine with me but they’re going to regret it. I have all ready stated my views on why I’m not leaving the Church for any reason. Everybody else can do what they want and I’ve told you that, also.
Now, I have a grievance. Some of you have talked to me about my relationship to the PROHETS and APOSTLES – like I’m obligated to believe every word they say. I listen to them the best that I can. I’ m not a very good listener. I don’t think you’ve ever quoted them where I have disagreed with them. But know this. When they speak, I listen to what they say and then I, AND I ALONE, decide whether It’s right or wrong. You decide that for yourselves, but you don’t decide that for me! Now as for this talk of Elder Uchtdorf, I remember it and had no argument with it. But to use it to deal with why somebody leaves the Church, I wouldn’t even use it because if someone leaves the Church, I, not only don’t worry about it, I can’t even say I really care. I was just wondering about the nonsensicalness of it. If you don’t believe the Church is the Lord’s Church then, OK, it’s time to leave. I believe it is the Lord’s Church, so, no matter how stupid things gets, I stay.
Old-Timer: If one leaves the Church, he
mustleave a valid baptism. Ouside the Chruch noone has the authority to perform that ordinance. I did not mean to imply that he can’t get back in. You told me not to teach so I didn’t feel I needed to explain that. As far as getting back in the Church, there’s always, also, the spirit world after this life, even if that includes suffering for you own sins. I didn’t feel that I needed to explain that. What I said is not false doctrine. It is true doctrine and all of the apostles would agree with it. If they didn’t then they would, definitely, be wrong. Show this to them if you like. With this kind of knowledge how could anyone leave the Church. It would be like picking up a bottle of poison and saying, ‘I think I’ll drink this and see what it feels like’. It’s simple logic. It doesn’t make any sense. Sure, you’ll die and go to the Spirit World. There you’ll accept the temple work done for you, if temple work needs to be done for you. But why would anyone want to take that route when they can just stay in the Church in the first place? I just didn’t think I needed to explain all that. Outside the unforgiveable, there’s always a way to salvation. (Assuming, of course, your killing yourself is forgiveable. I don’t know.)
Maybe I need to explain myself better without teaching. What I meant for everyone to understand was if you read something
that definitely has a spiritual messageand you didn’t get any spiritual message out of it then you need to read it again and put more thought into it. I wasn’t implying anyscripture that was, purely, informational. nibbler: You wrote:
“I agree, but then the question shifts to how do I know when it’s god, when it’s me, or when it’s my favorite GA? The spirit. I have to rely on the spirit to discover things. At one point in my life it was vital for me to resolve problems with history. Now I’m at a place where I don’t need historical problems resolved. It’s okay to have problems looming out there, problems have become my muse.”
I have a question for you and, regardless of your answer, I am not going to comment on it or challenge it. I believe it’s pretty much a yes or no question but it might be more. In the above quote, let me zero in on a part of it.
“The spirit. I have to rely on the spirit to discover things. At one point in my life it was vital for me to resolve problems with history. Now I’m at a place where I don’t need historical problems resolved.”
(refocus)
‘The spirit. I have to rely on the spirit to discover things.’
How true, and especially in the quest for truth. Nibbler, as I see it, in your life so far, you have gone from being vital to resolve problems with history to not needing historical prolems resoved. Now for the question:
Did the
Spirittell you not to be concerned about resolving historical problems? Now let me re-emphasize: This will not be challenged and I have no pre-conceived notions about it – except fear. If your answer is yes, then the same thing may have happened to me, but I don’t know for sure. I just keep running from it – Become a figurative person? – I don’t even want to talk about it. BESIDES, it’s SUCH a long story. I hope you find this and, regardless of what your anwer is, I hope you can answer it.
Old-Timer: “Paul v. John – Oaks v. Uchtdorf: Why We NEED a Quorum of 12 Apostles” (
http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2009 … -need.html)”I have it in my Bookmarks. Thank you.
Heber13: You Wrote:
“I doubt I have much to teach you. I was hoping you had something to teach me. I like learning from others’ views.
But I’ll share my view anyway…to quote Oaks again since I have that on my mind:
In contrast to the institutions of the world, which teach us to know something, the gospel of Jesus Christ challenges us to become something.
Therefore…
It’s Sunday and instead of going to Church, I decide to take a walk in the woods and view God’s creations and….feel the Spirit,…I guess. Anyway. Strait path or wide path?
Strait path. Feeling the spirit, especially in nature, helps me become more like Christ.”
Just one monstrous problem. You used a quote from Elder Oaks to support a ‘going for a walk on Sunday instead of going to Church’ concept? That’s kind of a far stretch.
Heber13, DarkJedi: How should I put this? If you read an historical event in the scriptures and don’t get anything spiritual out of it, I would say, for the most part, you didn’t read it. Getting the message (the spiritual lesson) out of it is the all important thing- unless you’re studying for a detailed quiz game. My thing with the spiritual/figurative interpretations is that, in the past, I have had very little trust in them or the people who used them. To me, it was just mushy incincerety, but you people seems to be very sincere. Amidst the corn stalks of Minnesota, we need people to show up for church, regularily. So when I first read this kind of, going for a walk in the woods on Sunday instead of going to church, talk in bloggersville all I could think of was – Oh, SPARE me! The spiritual message is very important to me. And, by the way, I hang for dear life for a purely doctrinal reason. I don’t think it has anything to do with figurtive/literal. If you leave the Church, you leave a valid baptism, you leave any chance of kingdom of glory. You are a son of perdition, forever. Leaving the Church makes no sense, WHATsoever, for any reason. No matter how stupid things get, I’m staying.
Orson: Would you please interpret D&C 121:36-37? And, by the way, this is not a test, but a gigantic curiosity.
Somebody said: “Really? I’ve read a large portion of Sorenson’s “Mormon Codex” – it’s proposed as the best evidence for the Book of Mormon (at least the new world sections of it). There were correlations and convergences but very little conclusive. evidence.
I think NHM/Bountiful proposed locations are probably among the only robust pieces of archaeological evidences.
With 1000s of data points in the BoM and millions of data points in the old and new world the probability that a few things would converge is very, very high, even if on an individual level the NHM probability seems very, very low.
I took my kids to the ruins of a Roman villa a few months ago. From a single location we could see their family customs, their religions and cultural practices. We could see the convergence of paganism and Christianity over a 100-200 year period. There was more evidence of Romans in that single location than has ever been found in the last 2 centuries for the Book of Mormon.”
Ok, people, here is some histocracy I can’t handle and never will be able to handle. Why did God let a histocracy get in the way of a histocracy that I feel is really there? And what are the spiritual things I’m supposed to learn from this? I haven’t studied this near enough and, probably, never will. For me, this is where doctrine comes crashing in. I believe, strongly, in the Restoration. People did not destroy the original Church. God took it away. With the restoration the keys of the kingdom of God, or the priesthood were restored. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the only church that has these keys making that church the Lord’s Church. So even though I find myself in a jungle of histocracy I can’t explain I just can’t be phased by it. Isn’t that funny? I can’t see anything spiritual about it,either. Without the keys we’re all going to hell anyway, so I’m hanging on for dear life. I’m staying on board. You’ll have to decide what you’re going to do.
“LookingHard wrote: DarkJedi wrote:
Pretty much what Nibbler said. It really makes no difference to me if any story in the old scriptures actually happened or not – whether I believe Jonah lived in a fish for three days or not doesn’t matter as long as I get the moral of the story.
I am there now also, but it does not bother me. It used to because I couldn’t figure out how the earth could be completely flooded. Now I don’t see a conflict and I can concentrate on what the takeaway should be – what does it tell me about God.
Further, LookingHard, I’m fine with the person sitting next to me taking everything perfectly literally – and we can carry on a conversation about the same story, reach the same conclusions and he or she might not even know I don’t see it literally. Think about that next time you’re sitting in Sunday School – it really doesn’t matter which of the others in the room believe literally, figuratively, or a mix of the two (and some will fit into each category). That is the beauty of being able to see from this perspective.”
LookingHard, DarkJedi. I’m going to try that. It might not work, I was raised in the old school. Figurative, kind of, gives me the creeps, but that’s my problem. I think I’m going to be able to tell it’s coming.
Nibbler: You wrote:” I ask myself: What’s the most important takeaway, spiritual lessons or history lessons? Which lessons have the power to effect change in my life? I can fast and pray as much as I’d like but that will not change history.”
Who’s trying to change history?
“ I can fast and pray to learn from history but at that point it doesn’t matter whether the historic event actually occurred, what matters is whether I am learning lessons that will help me become a better person.”
If God made it historical then it’s important. Look at the incident concerning the ten lepers. That incident could easily have been a parable. It not only really happened but when only one of the ten returned, what do you know but the one was a Samaritan. The Samaritan showed the true Church who was really just before God. Heavenly Father took one of many righteous Samaritans, gave him leprosy, sent him to Jesus to be healed by which He accomplished the same thing He did with the blind man. He showed the glory of God. If God makes an incident historical then the spiritual is already imbedded in the physical.
“Jesus’ parables come to mind. Does it really matter whether Jesus had a specific, historical figure in mind when he related the parable of the prodigal son? If the focus of study becomes whether the event actually occurred I may miss out on the lessons I was meant to learn from the cast of characters that were influenced by events.”
The spiritual is always not only the most important thing to get out of the scriptures, but it’s virtually the only thing to get. Don’t study the characters but study what they are doing.
“In some cases problems with history simply cannot be resolved.”
That might be but then I have to ask you. Who’s resolving them? Is it you? Is it your favorite General Authority? Is it God? If It’s God then you won’t get the car accident wrong and tossing thousands of years into the equation won’t complicate anything.
“All of that said, I understand the place and importance of history in setting the stage for learning spiritual lessons. If one were raised up in Norse mythology their history of creation may include stories of melting ice forming frost giants and a cow. That person would hear stories of how the cow licked deity out of a rock and how man was created from trees.”
Yes. I can appreciate that. In one of the new temple films (and I suppose this is in others, but I first noticed it in this one, the snow capped mountains.) If Adam and Eve had been there at least they wouldn’t have been found naked and, certainly not dressed in fig leaves. Imagine if we, today, came to church dressed in fig leaves. There would be big problems in short order. So setting aside all the frost giants and cows licking deity out of rocks, I see only one problem with it. God didn’t do it that way. So it’s a big problem – and nothing spiritual to learn from it.
“Some puzzles of history will only be solved in the next life, that’s why at times I chose to ignore the unanswered questions of history in an attempt to strengthen my connection with the spiritual.”
Who says they’re unanswered? God? In the quest for truth, I have learned one thing – that if you ask, you shall receive, if seek, you shall find, and if you knock, it shall be opened unto you. It might take decades to happen, but it will happen. If an incident, in scripture, is historical than find the spiritual in it and you might have more spiritual then you can handle.
I feel that when people can’t explain the religious teachings given by God in a historical, physical setting they start making up useless, nonliteral symbolisms to cover up ignorance. In Genesis there was a real Garden of Eden with a real Adam, a real Eve, a real tree of the knowledge of good and evil, a real tree of life, a real Satan, and a real serpent. Oh, and by the way, God, the Father, and Jesus Christ are also real.
Historically, as the story goes, the Father commanded Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the earth and not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They ate it anyway. This act of disobedience caused a fall which would not have happened without it.
Now, if you see problems with what physically happened, when compared with the spiritual teachings in the scriptures, don’t stick your heads in the sand and pretend like it didn’t happen. Figure out the problems and go on to the next piece of history. Pretty soon everybody is going to go outside at night and say that the stars aren’t really there. They are just symbolic.
To come to an anwer whether prohpets make mistakes or not, you first have to know who their judge is and then he or she has to tell you. Heber13: “There is only one path” – could be true…if you explain what path you’re talking about.”
etc.,etc.
Who cares what I or anyone else thinks the path is? What I care about is what does Jesus say the strait path is? If he calls it strait, then it must be dangerous. He also calls it narrow. It’s easy to get off of. He also talks about a wide path that many people find and he tells us further that the narrow one leads to life and the wide path (hint, hint –all the other paths,……or does wide path mean a lot of narrow paths?) leads to death.
Heaven forbid I should try to teach you what the strait path is so let me give you a situation. It’s Sunday and instead of going to Church, I decide to take a walk in the woods and view God’s creations and….feel the Spirit,…I guess. Anyway. Strait path or wide path?
You teach me. What’s my view? My view is that I can’t believe I typed the predceding paragraph.
I’ll try but that will be difficult. I’ve fought Mormons for forty years now. Sometimes I think they’ve never seen a verse of scripture. The ones I’ve dealt might have read them but it’s like they have never invoked a thought process. I think I’ll deal a little more with your doctrine section. That’s mainly church, though. Blogging can be challenging.
