[Watcher]

SilentDawning wrote:

If it’s coming it’s of no real consequence to me, as I’ve already been sifted

30 years ago we were at 11:59 pm of the 12:00 midnight Second Coming. The clock must be ticking AWFULLY SLOWLY. I personally agree with what others said — that the threat of a sifting has been on the books for over a century. I think JS or one of the GA’s in the early church said that the Second Coming might even happen in the lifetime of attendees’ children or something. That ship has sailed…

I have speculated that when a prophesy is spoken of that someone currently alive will live to see the 2nd coming -that it is a reverence that there are individuals of the current generation that will be translated.

[Watcher]

PazamaManX wrote:

Watcher wrote:

Perhaps I envision the final judgment different than others. My opinion – I do not think that the L-rd will say, “You just missed being saved in the Celestial kingdom by just a very small minor measure – sorry.” Rather, I think it may be more like the L-rd asking us, “Have you determined what level of glory you want for the eternities?” And some may answer, “At first I was considering the highest glory of the Celestial Kingdom but now having seen that all that the Celestial Kingdom of glory entails and the fact that all my friends are in another kingdom of glory – I have decided I will enjoy another glory other than Celestial”.

I have pondered that the gnashing of teeth thing following the judgment will be when it is discovered who all we will be spending eternity with.

I once heard a talk given by Elder Aidukaitis where he pitched this same idea. The way he described it, our judgment will be something similar to an interview with a bishop in his office, and we’ll get to decide which kingdom we want to live in. I like that idea and it’s the one I currently subscribe to.

It does make a lot of sense. So much importance gets placed on our agency, that using it to select our eternal residence doesn’t sound out of line. If His kingdom is run anything like like our modern church, even those who aren’t “worthy” should be able to get themselves in. Anyone can lie their way into baptism, onto a mission or into the temple. The problem for the people who do that is, at the very least, they seem to not get as much out of their church experience, if they aren’t outright unhappy. I wouldn’t be surprised if were allowed to “lie” our way into the Celestial Kingdom, find out it isn’t for us and later transfer to a lesser one.

The question I haven’t been able to answer for that theory is what’s the cost? If you can choose to take $1, $100 or $100,000 with no stipulations, who wouldn’t take the hundred thousand? All things being equal, everyone should be picking the top kingdom and staying. Though, going off the thought of becoming gods ourselves and creating our own worlds and spirit progeny, maybe not everyone would want that and would choose a lower kingdom. But then, why would someone pick the telestial option over the terrestrial one?

Not a question I have the answer to.

It seems to me that the only lie one would be telling would be to themselves. I am thinking that everyone would want to spend eternity being among those they feel comfortable with and doing things that they enjoy. I am kind of an example. I do not enjoy money – my wife, thankfully, handles all of it. I also do not have attachments to things – mostly because I do not like wasting my time taking care of things which is required for whatever one values. I would much rather be in the wilderness enjoying nature than at a tourist resort. If the Celestial Kingdom is all about sitting on an opulent golden throne barking out orders to “lessor” intelligences of glory – I am not interested – I would rather be exploring the possibilities of manipulating black holes and seeing what is possible.

[Watcher]

HazyShadeofFall wrote:

One of the hymns my ward sang yesterday was “I’ll Go Where You Want Me to Go.” I’ve never been missionary-minded or liked the song, but this week the title has taken on a new meaning as I’ve been working out where I should be in relation to the church. For the past few years my involvement has had 2 sides: Go to church regularly and participate in most things (exceptions are temple and tithing), and go online to discuss or vent about the things that are difficult. And, for the most part, it worked for me. There were (are) a lot of things that are painful or I think need to change, but there was still enough value in participating in the church that I felt it was the right place for me to be at the time.

And now… I don’t know. I feel lost again. I don’t know where I should be. Over the past few months it’s been exhausting trying to find value in my church meetings, and I’m exhausted by online criticisms too. There are still a few things I like about attending church that I don’t want to lose. My ward has many lovely, good people. I love singing hymns together, even if I don’t always like the song choices. Fast & testimony meetings are usually sincere and heartfelt. Relief Society meetings are usually safe places for vulnerable and meaningful discussions. But most sacrament meeting talks fall flat for me, I haven’t attended Sunday School in a couple months and don’t miss it at all, and the patriarchal structure of the church is suffocating. This past General Conference left me agonized for weeks.

I don’t know if I need a hard break from church for a while or if I should continue to attend but in a more limited way – maybe only attend Relief Society and the occasional sacrament meeting? I’ve been thinking a lot about it, praying for guidance, and trying a couple things out, but so far I haven’t landed on how to go forward.

At the very least, limiting my involvement in online spaces is easier than figuring out whether I should continue attending church and how involved I should be. I still like this forum, still listen to a couple podcasts on the rare occasion, and still follow a handful of instagram pages, but overall I’ve cut back a lot and it has helped.

My experiences in life are perhaps somewhat different than others. One of my experiences was an obligation in the army during the Vietnam era. I did not like the military and felt that many of those in charge were incompetent. It was difficult for me to learn to carry out orders that were flawed. But I did learn that even when orders are flawed it is better to work together and to carry out orders to the best of my ability (often with others that I did not like at all) than it is to complain and cause contention.

I lost some that I learned to live with in harmony (friends) in combat – this was somewhat difficult, but it was more difficult for me to come home and deal with those that have no concept of what it is like to spend years of one’s life in great discomfort thinking to benefit others only to find that I was hated and despised for it.

For me, I was able to get much more from the experience than what I gave and at this point of my life, I honestly believe that everyone should spend time in the military in a time of war. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was perhaps my greatest resource during this time in the military and returning home. For me, church was and still is a much appreciated oases in a most unforgiving landscape – even attending with Vietnamese that I once thought was my greatest threat in life.

[Watcher]

Minyan Man wrote:

Watcher wrote:

I believe that there are many examples in scripture that in the last days there will be a sifting. One such indication is the symbolism of the wheat and the chaff. Note that the term of sifting comes from the ancient method of sifting wheat. In this symbolism the wheat and tears grow together until the time of harvest. In the harvest the wheat is gathered, and the chaff is burned.

There is also the symbolism of Zion verses Babylon. This is generally understood to mean that the sifting that will take place will separate the “righteous” from the “wicked”. Anciently the righteous were understood to be those that seek to make covenant with G-d and to “keep” their covenants. In contrast those that refuse to make covenants with G-d or do not keep their covenants were understood to be the wicked.

In the Book of Mormon the wicked are called “stiff nicked”. This is because they refused to bow their head as part of the ritual (ordinance) by which covenants are made.

I am not sure that a sifting will take place except that those that do not make and keep covenants tend to – of themselves – kick against the pricks (which I believe is to criticize the priesthood brethren – I am not sure that BYU faculty counts) and persecute the Saints to one degree or another.

Watcher, I’m just wondering, do you think that StayLDS or other groups like us that ask questions, criticize or take issue with the gospel, church or

leadership are in danger of being on the bad side of the “sifting”? Are you a voice of warning?

I think we are all in danger – if not then this life is not much of a test of anything. It is my personal belief that we are warned about a lot of things – but this is not so we can figure out what is happening to others but rather to figure out things specific to ourselves. I have often pondered the warning of Jesus to his apostles at the last supper concerning that one would betray him. I can envision John turning to James and saying, “I’ll bet that is Judas – he has sure been acting strange lately.” Instead, I am of the mind that the apostles (except for one) understood much more than we think as they asked themselves and Jesus, “L-rd, is it I?”

Perhaps I envision the final judgment different than others. My opinion – I do not think that the L-rd will say, “You just missed being saved in the Celestial kingdom by just a very small minor measure – sorry.” Rather, I think it may be more like the L-rd asking us, “Have you determined what level of glory you want for the eternities?” And some may answer, “At first I was considering the highest glory of the Celestial Kingdom but now having seen that all that the Celestial Kingdom of glory entails and the fact that all my friends are in another kingdom of glory – I have decided I will enjoy another glory other than Celestial”.

I have pondered that the gnashing of teeth thing following the judgment will be when it is discovered who all we will be spending eternity with.

[Watcher]

Anciently there was a group of people that went in search of Eden. Their understanding was that it was a land most in the “East”. They traveled as far as they could then ran into a large body of water. According to tradition they prayed and not long after a civilization of boat builders and navigators of water arrived at their location. They merged and set out upon the waters and soon came to a group of islands that they thought was the land most eastward. They settled the islands and called it the “Land of the rising sun”.

While working in Japan, I met an LDS fellow that believed that Japan was settled by a people with Book of Mormon connections. That his ancient ancestors met a group associated with Hagar of the BofM that led them to the islands that is now known as Japan.

As for myself – I am of the opinion that the Garden of Eden was not on earth and that the reference to the garden epoch is symbolic – similar to the parables of Christ. It is interesting to note that the Ancient Greeks had a definite threshold defined between “prehistoric” and “historic”. They believe this threshold was the historian Homer and his works. Everything written before the works of Homer were “Prehistoric” and everything following Homer belongs to the historic age. Most of our modern age think only in terms of written language which changes per location and civilization.

[Watcher]

I believe that there are many examples in scripture that in the last days there will be a sifting. One such indication is the symbolism of the wheat and the chaff. Note that the term of sifting comes from the ancient method of sifting wheat. In this symbolism the wheat and tears grow together until the time of harvest. In the harvest the wheat is gathered, and the chaff is burned.

There is also the symbolism of Zion verses Babylon. This is generally understood to mean that the sifting that will take place will separate the “righteous” from the “wicked”. Anciently the righteous were understood to be those that seek to make covenant with G-d and to “keep” their covenants. In contrast those that refuse to make covenants with G-d or do not keep their covenants were understood to be the wicked.

In the Book of Mormon the wicked are called “stiff nicked”. This is because they refused to bow their head as part of the ritual (ordinance) by which covenants are made.

I am not sure that a sifting will take place except that those that do not make and keep covenants tend to – of themselves – kick against the pricks (which I believe is to criticize the priesthood brethren – I am not sure that BYU faculty counts) and persecute the Saints to one degree or another.

[Watcher]

DarkJedi wrote:

Watcher wrote:

It is interesting that in virtually all ancient cultures and language the references to “G-d” are by title and not specific name and then again there are multiple references. This is including ancient Hebrew as well. The oneness of G-d in Hebrew is the term “ehad” which is a plural term designating multiple individuals bound by covenant. I very much am drawn to this multiple of individuals bound by covenant concept. During the creation epoch in scripture, we are told that man was created in the image of G-d as male and female.

My understanding of “ehad” (or echad – spelling is somewhat fluid with Hebrew because old Hebrew didn’t have vowels) is “one made up of components.” It is almost always translated as one. It was once explained to me that it’s sort of how we describe a car. A car is made of many components but is only a car when all of the components are assembled – but then it is a car. Otherwise, it’s just car parts or pieces of metal and plastic. Deuteronomy 6:4 is an important scripture to Jews, repeated often by practicing Jews and is known as the “shema” or profession of faith. As repeated in Hebrew it is “Shema’ Yisra’el, Adonai ‘Elohenu, Adonai ‘echad” The KJV translates it as such: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” which lines up with other translations as well, although, others such as the NRSV use “the Lord alone” as the last phrase. (I happen to favor the NRSV, but I also believe overall the King James translators did very well at the translation and mostly just suffers from being written in older English.) The point here being that when this is repeated by observant Jews personally/privately and in synagogue it is done so as a profession/testimony that there is one God – the God (Adonai echad). It is a profession of monotheism and is never interpreted by Jews as having a plural meaning or as a Trinity or anything else (just like a car).

Christians use Deut. 6:4 as evidence of the Trinity. I think this a perfect example of the difference in interpretation of the same passage of scripture by Jews and Christians – a singularity vs. a trinity. From their own points of view neither is wrong, but from the other’s point of view they are wrong. A third point of view could be that neither are wrong – not “or” but “and.”

While on the topic, members of the church like to also use Elohim in this sense, saying that the word in Hebrew is plural. That is absolutely correct, the dictionary definition of Elohim is plural. It can be plural in the same way deer or shrimp are plural – one deer or many deer. When Jews use it, it is one God and again observant Jews will clarify that if you ask. Elohim in Jewish scripture is referring to one monotheistic God, not a Trinity or plurality of Gods. (They are mostly unaware that Mormons use it in this sense, but find it a bit amusing and/or mildly offensive. They also don’t use Elohim as God’s name, rather they use it as we use the word God or the God.)

Thank you for responding. First, I must admit that I am not an expert (I am also not excellent spelling in any language), but I have inquired from experts (mostly Rabbis that are well versed in ancient Hebrew). Hopefully this is not two far removed from the intent of the thread. I am told that in ancient Hebrew that conjugation are singular, two and many. This is unlike English where conjugation are singular and plural.

The ancient Hebrew “echad” is plural meaning many (3 or more). Also in ancient scripture there are only 4 basic uses for “echad”. The First is a designation of G-d, second is a use in marriage, third is in religious settings and forth is in political settings. It could be argued that in ancient Hebrew uses that the religious settings and political settings are in essence the same. I inquired directly why “echad” is used in marriage between a husband and wife (which is two) and I was informed that the third is implied to be G-d and that the only marriages recognized were religious marriages under covenant before G-d.

There are also two ancient Hebrew terms that are translated into “one” as we understand in modern terms. The other term is “yhead” (spelling may be incorrect). This term is singular and is used to reference a single individual person, thing or being. It is my understanding that there is debate concerning monotheism or polytheism in the ancient Hebrew society.

I did not intend to go completely into the science of ancient textual criticism but I would reference that vast array of dispute of ancient scripture. But there are some really interesting references in the ancient texts. For example, we are told in Genesis that man was created in the “image and likeness” of G-d – which is also referenced as male and female. It is not uncommon in ancient religions to believe that deity has a definite binary sexual orientation.

The reason I bring this up is because there are several references to the ancient Hebrew G-d that describe that being with several terms that are believed to be synonymous. Here is a short list: Holy, perfect, complete, whole and sacred. One question is that if man (male and female) are created in the image and likeness of G-d – what is the female reference to G-d that would parallel “our Father in Heaven”? I am not sure there is an answer beyond speculation (logic and reason).

In general, it appears to me that there is more speculation and thus the reason for so much debate. However, I would bring up one other idea that we see at the trial of Christ in the New Testament. The Jews cried out, “We have no king but Cesar”. Who then was Herod and why did Cesar give him the title of King of Judea? The answer to this lies in the law of Near eastern “kingdoms” and supreme Suzerain and servant Vassal treaties. Under such law and treaty, a servant vassal often had the same title as the supreme Suzerain and would speak in first person as though they were the supreme Suzerain. To oppose the servant Vassal was considered an act of treason. We see a parallel to this in the Old Testament when prophets would say, “Thus sayeth the L-rd”. This was also the law in ancient Egypt which has led many scholars to think that the Pharaoh presented himself as a g-d while others argue that Pharoah was only presenting himself as the servant Vassal of a g-d.

If there is interest – I believe that the New Testament clearly present the “oneness” of G-d as polytheistic and not monotheistic in more than one place in the Gospel of John – in which Jesus Christ is quoted directly that the “oneness” of G-d is many “oneness” with G-d.

[Watcher]

It is my observation that when ever we talk about gender roles that we attempt to try to solve everybody’s issues based on our own ideas. Let me explain. I believe that genders are intended to be complementary, especially in procreation of human life. But procreation of human life and family relationships are not the end of how roles require the genders to figure out how to work together.

Obviously, there are some contributions that cannot yield to social norms and a great many others that can. It is my personal belief that it is (or should be) up to a husband and wife to figure out this together. I believe that the worse problems arise when outside influences determine how any particular husband and wife ought to divide their talents – especially when individual talents are not being considered. If a husband and wife are happy and satisfied with their individual contributions to each other and their children; it is not (in my mind) a great idea for anyone else to find it necessary to change it or give any advice to change it. Why should anyone else (other than a husband and wife) be dictating who or if one is more responsible than the other concerning the changing of diapers?

If this problem cannot be resolved by parents with the children that need such assistance it will become much worse when parents age and become in need of such assistance. Sometimes necessity teaches us more than we want to learn.

[Watcher]

Joni wrote:

I did a double take when I saw this interview with Fiona Givens on Flunking Sainthood, because I honestly thought I was the only one! 😯

I wouldn’t say that I believe for sure that HM = the HG, and I certainly wouldn’t teach it to anyone (I’m in no hurry to get excommunicated, thanks) but it definitely seems plausible to me. A couple of reasons why:

– it makes more sense to think of the Godhead as consisting of a nuclear family – mother, father, child – rather than father, son, and unrelated male person.

– while we insist the Holy Ghost is male, I don’t see any reason why that has to be. We freely admit that we know next to nothing about the HG so why are we so sure about His/Her gender?

– the roles of the Holy Ghost (comfort; help make decisions; testify of truth) sound an awful lot like the things that I do for my children

– if Heavenly Father is worried about people disrespecting His wife, He does not show respect for Her by locking Her away in a closet and never speaking of Her again. I like the idea that She has been hiding in plain sight all this time, and we will recognize Her when we see Her again.

On the flip side, there are a couple of things I don’t like about this theory:

– the Holy Ghost is barely mentioned in the temple. (Yes, this is in contrast to the way Heavenly Mother is not mentioned, but still.) The Holy Ghost does not appear to have participated in the creation of the earth or the decision to send Jesus to earth as the Savior. If She is Jesus’ mom, you better believe She had an opinion on that!

– the Holy Ghost cannot act independently; it can only do Heavenly Father’s bidding. So a person prays to Heavenly Father, in Jesus’ name, and HF sends the HG to answer that person’s prayer. While the idea of spending all of my eternity carrying out my husband’s directions to bless our children’s lives is a LOT more appealing than being forbidden to contact them at all, I would still rather be equal partners. It would appear that the relationship between Heavenly Father and the Holy Ghost, whoever that is, is a preside/hearken relationship rather than an equal partnership.

Thoughts?

I cannot say that I agree with much of what you have posted but I like the idea of bringing more to the forefront concerning our Mother in Heaven. In essence, I am of the notion that the Holy Ghost is the same individual and is male. I am open to logic but I see the problem as a matter of two little information to be able to draw any meaningful conclusion.

It is interesting that in virtually all ancient cultures and language the references to “G-d” are by title and not specific name and then again there are multiple references. This is including ancient Hebrew as well. The oneness of G-d in Hebrew is the term “ehad” which is a plural term designating multiple individuals bound by covenant. I very much am drawn to this multiple of individuals bound by covenant concept. During the creation epoch in scripture, we are told that man was created in the image of G-d as male and female.

I am of the notion that G-d as a Celestial being is not an individual – and at minimum a male and female that are in essence a husband and wife bound by an “everlasting covenant”. I have speculated that this could include a male and multiple females bound by a Celestial marriage covenant, but I do not know – not from studies nor from personal revelation. Thus, I see that our Father in Heaven does not reside alone as G-d but that He is G-d by and through the covenant of marriage. That in essence when we address G-d or that individual that is our Father in Heaven that we also address His wife(s) or our Mother(s) in heaven as well. That it is impossible to separate the power and glory of G-d outside of the marriage covenant. I give this as opinion applying the logic as I understand given us in scripture – particularly in the Doctrine and Covenants.

[Watcher]

Roy wrote:

I am glad for your experience and the effect it has had on your life watcher. It actually has numerous similarities to a talk Elder Richard G. Scott gave when I was a missionary in Chile. Incidentally, I was privilidged to hear versions of the same talk several times and was fascinated by the differences in the telling based on the audience etc. The theme of the talk was how to receive personal revelation.

Watcher wrote:

Whenever I hear someone claim that G-d does not answer their prayers – the only thing I am convinced of is that they have not learned how to listen.

I think that it is important that we learn to believe others in describing their experience even if we do not understand it. It is a way of showing respect that we make room for their experience, their story, and their truth. This fundamentally requires that we conceptualize of a reality where our version of truth is not the only version of truth and that people with other versions of truth are not liars or deceived or even possessors of lessor truth that may someday learn of our higher level of truth.

Specifically as it relates to the mission of StayLDS, we cannot just tell people that are having a hard time that they are doing it wrong. That is not respectful of their experience and their ability to properly understand it.

From the rules of Etiquette section:

Quote:

Please feel free to disagree with anyone. Nobody here has all the answers. We can all benefit from being challenged. This is not a debate club though. There is no winning or losing. Please try to stay supportive and positive with those who might not believe the same way…

The List of Don’ts…

Please do not start discussions that lead to a debate with the results of finding the one correct answer to a problem. Topics like this will probably be moderated.

Topics and comments should not portray the beliefs of others (traditional Mormon, non-believers or those of other religions) in a disrespectful manner. This violates the mission and spirit of our community, and content like that will probably be moderated or removed.

Thank you, Roy. This is not the first time I have been pointed to etiquette. Perhaps this is not a forum for me to speak openly. I am driven by logic and even within the confines of religious notions – if I cannot connect to the logic of it, I cannot understand it or believe it to be true.

This thread asks a simple question about G-d answering every prayer. This appears to be to be a question demanding binary logic of either yes or no. This kind of binary answers are opposites with no intersecting possibilities. I see no possibilities of answer without some inference that one answer is believed to be right and the other wrong.

I understand that any challenge to logic implies that there is an error in logic which implies a “wrong” conclusion. I also believe that I cannot test or improve my logic unless there is a challenge to it. In short, I can only learn from someone of a different opinion at some level. Thanks again for your corrections.

[Watcher]

Roy wrote:

Marital rape happens when one spouse forces the other spouse to have sex without their consent. Being married does not remove the need to have consent. Throughout history, women were seen as property and rape was seen as a violation of that property (either belonging to the husband or the father). Therefore, for many centuries it was reasoned that a husband could not rape his wife because his wife was not allowed to withhold her sexuality from him.

Quote:

These views of marriage and sexuality started to be challenged in most Western countries from the 1960s and 70s especially by second-wave feminism, leading to an acknowledgment of the woman’s right to self-determination of all matters relating to her body, and the withdrawal of the exemption or defense of marital rape.

By the 1990s many jurisdictions, including all fifty U.S. states, had criminalized marital rape.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape

The August version of the Liahona features an article titled “Honoring Agency in Physical Intimacy.” Is essentially states that getting consent is required before initiating physical affection (kissing, hugging, holding hands) or sexual contact – even after marriage.

While it does not use the words “marital rape,” it specifically states…

Quote:

when agency is used to act upon others, disregarding their right to choose how and when to participate in either physical affection or sexual intimacy, such contact becomes an act of aggression that lacks respect for God’s standards and the other individual’s agency, feelings, and desires. Using physical contact for selfish gratification or as a tool to subjugate and manipulate another person is a sin that can cause lasting harm to individuals and relationships.

I want to applaud the church for putting this in black and white. I think that there had been some old school hardliners in our church that still maintained the idea that women belong to their husbands (and teachings about polygamy certainly help to reinforce that interpretation). I think that since the 1980s the church has evolved a great deal in this area and I am 100% in favor.

I have bolded and underlined a particular part. Intimacy in marriage should never be by force nor used (withheld) as punishment. A marriage is failing if a husband and wife are not acting together as one. The term in Hebrew that is used to describe the oneness in marriage is “ehad”. This is the same term used to indicate one G-d. The Hebrew term for “one” individual is “yhead”.

[Watcher]

Roy wrote:

Watcher wrote:

I have found that when I face an important tasks that I kneel in prayer and present my plan to accomplish what I believe is needed. When I have completed my plan, I kneel again and report how things went. As a standard – in the morning I pray and present my plan for the day. At evening, I pray again and report how my day went.

That honestly sounds pretty amazing and helpful. I imagine that this would serve to make an individual more prepared and focused. The reporting in the evening can serve as time for review and recalibration for the future. This sounds like a good strategy to maximize your personal effectiveness. Thanks for sharing it.

Perhaps I ought to share how this was started in my life. Likely not what many might think. I thought I had an excellent understanding of prayer in my teenager years. I also enjoyed dating and was what many would call a “player”. I had gotten a date with one of the most popular girls at my high school and of course I was bragging about this among my guy friends and acquaintances. One thing led to another, and I was challenged to get a kiss on the first date.

My best friend gave me an additional challenge to make a plan and pray about it. I had several successful encounters in prayer (but up to this point my prayers were centered on religious concerns and personal needs). I had never thought to have a serious prayer about things that were not all that serious in my mind.

I planned the perfect date – with flowers for my date as well as her mom. Just before I left for my date I went to my room and presented my plan in prayer to my Father in Heaven. I figured G-d knew me, and what I was thinking so I did not try to hide anything. I asked if He would assist me with my plan. Things went far better than I expected but only for a little while. Without going into all the details my date started to cry and told me about a personal problem she was having – because she thought I was such a “nice” guy – especially to her.

The kiss never happened but the date turned out to be a very spiritual event for both of us. We became good friends – just not in any romantic way (which was the first time I had a girlfriend without romance intended or involved. That night, following the date I knelt again by my bed and talked about what happened. It was the first time that I remember having the impression that G-d was pleased with me. I prayed about every date after that.

A few years later I was in the army and found myself in a serious situation that I was not sure I would survive. I decided to use the method of prayer I discovered for dating. I was impressed to make changes to my plan. I discovered that I could receive guidance in making plans as much as in attempting to carry out such.

For me, it has been the most powerful influence to bring me closer to understanding G-d and what I can do to draw closer to Him. Whenever I hear someone claim that G-d does not answer their prayers – the only thing I am convinced of is that they have not learned how to listen.

[Watcher]

DarkJedi wrote:

You are making some huge and erroneous assumptions here.

Watcher wrote:

I will attempt to address your questions. First your concern that G-d does not make deals. How could you have any such idea if you personally have not had any dealings with G-d? If you have had any dealings with G-d then that proves that G-d not only makes deals but you have yourself made such a deal. You will have to explain why this simple logic does not explain deals.

This is the most perplexing assumption. If you have read much of what I have written here (and I understand that’s a lot and I don’t write about the same things all the time) you will know that I lean toward deist ideas in that I believe God is the Creator and Parent. But I also believe God is mostly hands off, set the universe in motion and in that way the universe is perfect in what it is supposed to accomplish – giving us the opportunity to learn and experience that which we need to in order to return to God. I do believe I communicate with God (at least the Holy Spirit) and thus have had “dealings” with God but have made no “deals” (note these two – dealings and deals – are different definitions in context). I ask God for nothing and as far as I can tell God has only given that which God gives to everyone.

Quote:

You say you are sure no one can buy their way into heaven. I assume then that you believe there is a heaven, and we currently are not there. Unless you have knowledge of heaven and what is necessary for entry – I do not see how you can be “quite sure”. I do not understand your logic. If there is any entry into heaven, there must be a currency for such entry. If you mean that you do not think mortal man has access to such currency – if that is what you mean then perhaps, we have some common ground.

Very simply put I am sure no one can buy their way into heaven because the price has been paid by our Savior Jesus Christ. Nothing we can do earns our way to heaven. While we do sometimes get conflicting messages from our leaders in this regard, when we get back to the true core doctrine they always come back to that – Jesus paid the price through the infinite atonement and we are unprofitable servants (although I actually believe God is our servant, not the other way around).

Quote:

As for covenants I can only reference my own journey and my understanding. There are many examples of covenant failure, and it appears to me that you think your efforts have ended in failure. I would suggest that it is flawed logic to assume that your failures are proof that success is impossible. Regardless of how many counterfeits that may possibly exist that is not logic or statistical evidence that a genuine does not exist. For a possible solution I would point you to D&C 132 with a particular reference to verse 7 and the need for the Holy Spirit of Promise to “seal” your covenants or contracts (dealings).

This one perplexes me as I fail to see why you believe I have failed at covenants without evidence – you don’t know me. While I have been known to engage in loud laughter, and no one does all they can do (I agree with Elder Uchtdorf there), I generally have kept the covenants I don’t believe I made because I’m a nice guy and try to be a good person – not because I expect to earn points toward heaven but because I believe that’s the one thing God has asked us to do (be nice to one another with no expectation for reward). Note also that I don’t believe section 132 to be scripture, it doesn’t pass the test (multiple writers with the same message, that’s what prophets do).

Quote:

I think we must be careful at this point because I wonder if you can point out anything in this mortal existence where you or anyone else has made any knowledgeable choice of anything – in particular, to the conclusion of any choice. To be specific, though I cannot empirically prove all possibilities – yet so far as we know everything that lives will eventually die regardless of any choices – which using the metrics you suggest; all choices are eventually meaningless. If that is really the case and you believe it – Why are you posting on this forum?

Yes, we do need to be very careful. As I said above you don’t know me. But even if you did, there is no place for judgement here. Please don’t misquote me or put words in my mouth – I never said all choices are meaningless, and I do not believe that to be the case. We do make choices and every choice has a consequence (and I don not believe in predestination). Why do I post here? I can’t share my membership justification because it’s no longer there from 9 years ago and an upgrade in the meantime, but I can paraphrase it. It was essentially that I was happy to find this forum because of the support it offers and that I expected to be a regular participant. That was 7672 posts ago. Simply I post here 1. to support others who are struggling with the church and help them StayLDS and 2. to seek support for my own struggles (and StayLDS). Those two have switched places since 2013. I post here because there are not only two points of view, only right or wrong, or only black and white. There’s not only gray either, there’s a whole rainbow out there, and when we lift our eyes we can see that. I believe scriptures often (almost always) have more than one meaning on purpose, and what one means to you can have a totally different meaning to me and not only is that OK, I believe it’s part of God’s plan. God can speak to us through scripture (and many other ways) and what God has to say to you is likely different than what God has to say to me. Yet there are some things God wants all of us to know. The only one of those I’m pretty sure about is that we’re supposed to be nice to one another. What God has to say to me personally is only my business unless God indicates I should share or I feel like sharing. I regularly share here, but most of what I share is my own experience, observations, and beliefs. I believe there is a God (or Gods) and I hope there is redemption.

Thank you for your response: I will attempt to highlight some of my misunderstandings:

Just a couple of things – You have stated that you do not believe that G-d makes “deals”. Then you said: “Very simply put I am sure no one can buy their way into heaven because the price has been paid by our Savior Jesus Christ.” That looks like a really BIG deal to me!!! – that G-d has made. If you believe in the Atonement of Christ – why do you insist that it was not a “deal”?

As for your covenants – you did indicate to me that when you were baptized and ordained to the priesthood (a day later) that you had no concept what you were doing. I do not believe that a valid and binding covenant can be made in ignorance. I had nothing but your own words. You are correct – I do not have knowledge of your covenant intent, but it does appear from your own words – that you had no intent. It may be that since then, you have entered into a binding covenant with a promised to be a disciple of Christ. This renewal of the baptism covenant (as I understand) is called repentance and can be made official through the ordinance of the sacrament. If you have repented of your former ignorance – then it would appear to me (as I understand such things from my own experience) that you would have a valid covenant. But you posted nothing about repentance in your description.

Thanks for taking time to communicate.

[Watcher]

Minyan Man wrote:

My (younger) BIL was born with mental & emotional defects. He went to church every week with my in laws & prepared as best he could

for baptism. They “main streamed” him in school. I believe it was special ed classes. When he turned 8, the Bishop told them he didn’t

need to be baptized because of his condition. After that he didn’t really feel like he belonged because the other children his age were

able to be baptize & confirmed. (I’m not sure if that policy has changed or not.) I know it not only bothered him but other members of

the family as well.

Depending on how long ago this took place – I would suggest your family (parents) approach the bishop again and request baptism for your brother. Most likely baptism is not necessary but that does not mean it cannot happen. If the bishop has not changed – I would suggest that an appointment be made with the Stake President and what is posted here is explained to him.

[Watcher]

For those that may not know – the late Apostle Bruce R McConkie was responsible for putting together the “Study Helps” we use in the scripture. He is also the author of most of the commentary in the study helps.

Quoting from Apostle McConkie in the Bible Dictionary under the topic of Prayer:

Quote:

As soon as we learn the true relationship in which we stand toward God (namely, God is our Father, and we are His children), then at once prayer becomes natural and instinctive on our part (Matt. 7:7–11). Many of the so-called difficulties about prayer arise from forgetting this relationship. Prayer is the act by which the will of the Father and the will of the child are brought into correspondence with each other. The object of prayer is not to change the will of God but to secure for ourselves and for others blessings that God is already willing to grant but that are made conditional on our asking for them. Blessings require some work or effort on our part before we can obtain them. Prayer is a form of work and is an appointed means for obtaining the highest of all blessings.

I have found this quote to contain divine revelation and I add my personal witness that there are blessings that are only obtained through individual fervent prayer.

In addition to many things that are said about prayer – I have found that when I face an important tasks that I kneel in prayer and present my plan to accomplish what I believe is needed. When I have completed my plan, I kneel again and report how things went. As a standard – in the morning I pray and present my plan for the day. At evening, I pray again and report how my day went. I have found that it is most difficult to pray for “improper” things and more so to report of things done that should not have been done. For myself – I find it most difficult to have a dishonest intent in my prayers and so my daily prayers often become a beginning of the process of repentance.

[Author]

Posts