Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
wuwei wrote:
I hate Provo…
At least they are getting Google fiber optic for super high speed broadband internet throughout the city! Got to find the positive where it exists!
What about the 80 year old painter lady in Spain who “updated” the painting of Christ that caused an uproar around the world, both for good and bad, for changing the original? She though she was doing everyone a favor, but many feel that there was nothing wrong with the original and the attempt to change it destroyed the beauty of the original that has been around for hundreds of years. I’m not sure I have all of my facts straight, but to me it seems like there is some (but not complete) similarity between this example and the modification of the Christus statue. Beauty and meaning is in the eye of the beholder, but what about was in the eye of the artist who created the work of art, either on their own or commissioned? Is it more important to “get it right” as far as Mormon conceptions of what Christ represents as we try to produce something that looks the way we envision him, or is there some honor and respect for the vision of the sculptor or painter who transposed what was in their mind and placed it on canvas or chipped away at stone to make that vision come to life? What value are we assigning to their work and efforts? mackay11 wrote:But simple maths tell me that it was never God’s intention for the majority of his children to need mormonism in this life and I imagine it won’t exist in the next.
This may be evident to everyone else here, but this was a profound thought that I had never thought of before. Thank you for sharing it. It bears consideration.
The party-line answer would be that the living members of the church would make up the numbers in doing temple work for the billions who have lived and died on earth. I wonder if anyone good with numbers has ever done an analysis on how long it would take for the adult population of the church who are temple-recommend worthy and within reasonable distance of a temple to do (time-wise) all of the ordinances that happen in the temple for every person who has ever lived. Surely someone could run the numbers of science’s best guess at how many humans have lived on earth from the dawn of the species to today and see how long it would actually take us to do one ordinance of each kind for every person who has lived? It takes 2 hours to do an endowment, a minute to do a sealing, a minute to do initiatory, and probably two minutes to do both baptism and confirmation. There are some time parameters here that can surely calculate, but I’m not good with numbers and would surely make significant mistakes.
What it comes down to is “if the whole church did nothing but temple work day and night for 1000 years, how many people could have their work done?” Is it even possible to give this opportunity to every man and woman who has ever lived (not even considering the question of how we will know the names of the herders who lived on the steppes 4500 years ago, etc.) given the size of the church, or will the church have to expand greatly to just turn into a temple-work steam engine barreling down the tracks doing nothing else for centuries?
I know I’m off topic here. I can move this to another thread if that would be appropriate. Moderator?
Old-Timer wrote:I have a hard time believing this won’t have a significant effect on the organizational structure of missions.
Eventual need for “Female AP’s” to serve like a RS Presidency for the needs of the sister missionaries (who would likely still report to male priesthood leaders for “chain of command” stuff)?
SamBee wrote:And yet one of the major complaints I get from non-members again, and again, is that they don’t want to be lectured by a twenty year old on life. Now an eighteen year old will do that instead!
I think that goes back to the old premise that if we REALLY were more interested in getting converts (numerically), we’d send adults (or Q12) out on missions like in 1830’s -40’s church history. I think the emphasis on sending out our youth is more focused on saving the youth (and coincidently saving “the elect” that we find along the way) than finding whole congregations of “lost sheep” to bring in.
SamBee wrote:Don’t see what’s so wrong with getting a planet. Alright, it sounds odd, but it’s kind of cool at the same time. This is one of our USPs (unique selling points)… otherwise we might as well be Methodist.
I’ve always had a problem with the Mormon concept of everyone being a King and Priest, etc., and getting to rule. What happens when everyone is king? Who would you rule and why? Is everyone destined to rule a planet (or whatever) who is faithful in the church? What about those who don’t want to – or would be quite bad at it for some reason. Would they just be “taken care of?” What if I don’t want to rule (I know – I’m an apostate and won’t have to worry about that anyway!
😆 ) Does everyone with delusions of grandeur naturally gravitate towards Mormonism because, hey — we’re handing out PLANETS to those who get in on the ground floor! (Talk about the greatest multi-level marketing scheme in history!!!)For my own two cents worth: I really believe that God is a respecter of persons and plays favorites – unabashedly. Much of the scriptures seem to more emphasize the “carrot and the stick” where you are “blessed” if you do what is expected and “punished” if you do not. This sounds so much like CONTROL to me that it seems the antithesis of true “free agency.” Sure, ultimately you can choose do do what brings the reward or the punishment, but WHY? Why would we need to learn this in this life? Surely even single-celled organisms can determine dangerous or bad stimuli and engage in rewarding behavior. It doesn’t require intelligence – just senses to do this. If God were more interested in helping us learn how to choose for ourselves in the midst of crisis as good as we can rather than “choose my way or the highway”‘s method of “pick God’s plan for you because it is SO MUCH more superior to anything you would pick” (I could make pretty good choices too if I was omnipotent and omniscient), then I could buy into this better.
I get the feeling that sheep are used as a metaphor so much in the gospel because that is what they would like our behavior to most conform to – a kind, gentle shepherd loves us and knows us more than we love or know ourselves and wants to take care of us as long as we stay within the sheepfold. He will protect us there from wolves or thieves who want to do us harm as long as we don’t wander. We always hear about how Jesus taught to “leave the ninety and nine” and go after the one who went astray, but so much of the focus in this church seems to be exactly the OPPOSITE – always work to strengthen the 99 so they don’t wander off, and it would be nice if the lost one(s) eventually came back, but we are more focused on keeping them within the sheepfold than making sorties into the world to try to give a reason for those who are lost to come back. I know I am cynical, but this is how I see it and what I hear from talks and General Conference all the time. Preaching to the choir, let the people in the rear get up and walk out.
Roy wrote:It seems that God set up this life in a way that allows different people to authentically came to different conclusions of spiritual truth and then have confiming experiences that tend to solidify that position. The experiences are real, the conclusions are real (as real as any other conclusions), it is the
whythat we wrestle with. Let me preface by saying I am not intending to be confrontational, just discussing.
Why “God set up this life in a way . . .” Why does it have to be God? There are people all over the world who believe God or gods or spirits or nature . . . based on their experiences. I often come back to one concept both in the New Testament and referred to in the Joseph Smith story:
Quote:1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not the author of confusion . . .
Joseph Smith History 1:10
. . . Who of all these parties are right;
or, are they all wrong together?If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it? If there really is only one God, why would he allow or
encourageso many divergent understandings of his “truth” to be appropriated and sometimes diametrically oppose some others’ faith traditions who are as SURE of “the truth” as the others are. This has never made sense to me. If there is a God, and he is indeed the source of TRUTH, and if he has sprinkled it throughout the world such that parts have been picked up in seemingly distressingly contradictory ways, how can this be evidence for God being the source of that truth? Our experiences with him? What of those of us who do not have experiences with him? Who cry out “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?” God may not be the author of confusion, but I am confused.
Kumahito wrote:I think this is exactly right: don’t let the Exec Sec schedule you an appointment and then just no-show. I think that’s ill mannered and doesn’t show respect for the person’s time who is sitting waiting for you to show up. If it were me, I’d put my hand on his shoulder and say “Mike, I really appreciate you looking after me, but I’m just not ready to meet with anyone from the bishopric regarding a temple recommend. When that changes, you’ll be the first person I call. Thanks, though.”
Having been an exec. sec. before, I can tell you that I was very conscious of personal issues that people could have and not wanting to get involved in them in any way. I was just there to schedule appointments. I am not sure from your description of
yourspecific guy, but if he is anything like I was, he has had experiences where someone was not ready for an appointment and would just pass on the information and let the bishopric sit on it or not as they saw fit. A report from me would go something like “I tried to schedule Sister. X for an temple rec. interview and she said she would let me know when she wanted to set it up.” No particular red flags. It could just be a really busy time for you, or she could have concerns that I would reallyhave not wanted to get involved in that if I was exec. sec., so the matter would simply (and with relief) be passed on and that’s it. If they had some further questions, they would then follow up later if needed, but I don’t see the whole ward getting involved UNLESS you took to the rooftops and made your issues known far and wide. I know being in crisis can make you feel unsure, especially when trying to discern the motives of others who you encounter and have relationships with. But I think worrying about “what will they think” can lead to overthinking these situations and can sometimes result in small (or not) degrees of increasing parania while “the secret” isn’t out on you. I would hope you could just say to your exec. sec.,
“I can’t commit to having a temple recommend interview right now due to personal reasons, but I will contact you or the bishop when I’m ready.”
Open ended. Not necessarily sounding like anything is up. Leaves the ball in your court – for as long as you need.
jamison wrote:The missionaries are going to double with the new change in policy. I heard the applications to become missionaries have tripled or quadrupled.
I believe this is just speculation. I do not believe that the number of missionaries (approx. 50,000) is going to “double” where the pool of eligible young men in the United States (the statistically most significant area since it was under the age 19 policy before and contains the largest body of church members from which to draw) is only going to be modified by moving a date up a few months (at least no more than 12) from where they were probably going to apply anyway. Also, the “surge” of applications will surely end up like a bubble (such as the baby boomers) that will cycle through the system for a period of time, and then adjust back to an equalibrium. I really don’t see the difference for young men going from 19 to 18 is going to make a huge change for the number of missionaries who were likely to go on missions anyway. Percentage-wise, it will probably affect the number of women serving missions more, but even there I would be surprised to see the actual numbers long-term fluctuate a huge amount. Time will tell. JMHO.
mackay11 wrote:(By the way, I see people say CER when asking for a quote/reference. What does it stand for?).
I think you may mean “CFR” which stands for Call For Reference(s). It means produce documented source that someone else can check for themselves as to the authenticity of a particular statement. At least, that’s what I hope it means!
🙂 jamison wrote:What about social injustice by an overreaching corporation, or an oppressive government that does not care for its people, and goes against their wills for its own ends.
For those specifically living in the USA (but certainly not exclusive to them): Who are this “oppressive” government that does not care for its people? It is
US. We are the government. It is made up of people just like us, from all walks of life, creeds, ideas, beliefs and experiences. When I thought government was not doing enough in my area, I ran for office and got elected. I then became part of the “oppressive government” to try to do what I could to improve the condition of my fellow citizens. It is amazing how many people will gripe about what they see is wrong, but few step up and offer reliable, realistic ideas for how to make it better. If you are really dissatisfied, run for office. Get elected. Put your ideas forward. Or, if you don’t get elected, continue to have your voice heard as part of the public discourse. In a democratic society, sometimes your voice carries and change results. Sometimes, it doesn’t. What happens isn’t always because it is by nature the RIGHT and most perfect thing possible. It is based on the WILL OF THE PEOPLE (whatever that is at the time). If enough people aren’t as upset about something as you, you can persist in saying “everyone else is wrong” or you can consider where you might be in some error in the way you see or feel about things. This leads to growth if we are brave enough to consider it. I think that is the hardest and least-often used method of dealing with dissonance (not just religious/cognitive), but may ultimately bear the most fruit in the greater scheme of things, starting with us as an individual.
Roadrunner wrote:To answer the question – I think that some of the more unpopular church positions might have changed or softenend with an LDS president. In the next few years I believe that some church stances will become increasingly unpopular in the US and around the world. An LDS president might have provided positive pressure for the church to change. That being said, if Romney were elected and if he turned out to be highly controversial or ineffective then perceptions of Mormons would likely be more negative.
So, for those who believe that the Lord is in control of why everything happens the way they do, would it be fair to say that
hedidn’t want Romney to be the first LDS President and recognize his hand in the defeat? Just wonderin’? 😯 jamison wrote:Obama sees the Constitution as a road block and a negative and our Doctrine & Covenants talks about how the Constitution is inspired and ordained of God.
I think this is an unfair and inaccurate representation and is putting words in his mouth that I have never heard him say or had it reported by reputable news source that he said. This kind of comment is in the exact same spirit of people putting words in the mouths of Joseph Smith, Jesus Christ, or any person you want to name whom people seem to know better what they would have said/been thinking than the people themselves did.
No, I am not in any way, shape or form comparing Barak Obama to the above mentioned figures. But the situations of casting aspersions where they are not in direct evidence is a tactic long used to ill-effect in the history of people trying to improve and become more civilized in relation to their neighbors. We should know better, having experienced it ourselves. Let’s cool the rhetoric down a little, everyone?
Cadence wrote:I have often thought that the true church would have somehow figured out how to manage the temporal affairs of its members by now. It would have instituted job training, built industry to employ its many members, and become a business yes but one that caters to the needs of its members by providing quality employment. This would be the true church to me.
Makes me think of the historical Catholic church. While the masses did get proselytized, missionaries would focus on the kings, lords, ruling classes, etc., expecting (which bore out historically) that if the rulers converted, the people would too. The rulers would want to demonstrate their grandness and piety by building cathedrals and churches and lavishing riches on them, while the poor and destitute all around the sites would carry on with their downtrodden lives. This continued for centuries from the early 2nd century on.
Churches always benefit most (financially) by the wealthy who can afford to support their causes with their riches. Be it Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc., you will find gold, jewels and incense to show the grandeur of the religion and its worth to the faithful and to those who see it, but I always wonder how such great displays of wealth on BEHALF of a god could have done for the CHILDREN or creations of that god if it had been spent on them instead. Yes, we would have fewer statues, temples, churches, sacred buildings, but at certain times of history, how much suffering could have been otherwise alleviated?
Why? Is it easier to build a grand monument than to take care of others? Certainly, people believe they are venerating their god or religion by focusing on making THINGS rather than improving people, but would not true religion want to build its testament to their beliefs in the lives they improved rather than the gold they contributed?
On the other hand, human nature being what it is, wouldn’t all needy people see a church lifting people up and everyone scramble to get “in on the action” while it was still available? When does the religion stop being about helping raise other people and become a welfare state/dole that doesn’t do much to actually change the lives of the people it is attempting to reach?
[/endmusing] Sorry. I don’t really have an answer to the OP’s problem. Being out of work, especially as a guy, brings about all kinds of self-worth issues in addition to the practical day-to-day ones. Whether the Church is involved or the focus or not, it is hard for anyone to go through without trying to pick apart both the cause (initial) and the lack of relief (long term). Millions in all countries around the world are facing the issue and not finding a lot of solutions (not just the US. Think of Greece and Spain and elsewhere where unemployment is even greater). Each case is a study in personal suffering and emotional and physical loss – both of income and self worth. My only suggestion is to separate your sense of self-worth from your current lack of ability to provide for your family. You are still of worth irrespective of your paycheck. You have talents, skills, and experiences that no one else in the world has. There WILL come a time when someone will recognize your value to their endeavor and will offer you a job. That doesn’t help while you are going through it, but it HAS to change and will if you can just last long enough. The wait can seem interminable, but if you can find a way to believe in yourself, something WILL turn around. If you want to believe that God is responsible for that, good. If it is nature, fate, luck or chance, good too as long as it helps you get through to the light at the end of the current tunnel.
As someone who has long wrestled with issues of depression and self worth, I hope something of what I have said can help in some way. We are pulling for you!
