hi TD and guy. I think I hear what you're saying, and I agree. We each have our life experience which is uniquely ours. To rely on an authority or system of belief outside of our own selves becomes a leap of faith...and oftentimes logic (to the spiritual "mind") and/or illogic (to the rational mind). To be honest, universalist ideals/ideas appeal to me also. I've talked with some buddies of mine and we are pretty much on the same page that if we ever left our LDS beliefs behind and we didn't become agnostic/atheist, we'd go universalist. But when I look at the LDS system of faith I see universalism built into the theology. Three kingdoms, many mansions, and such.
TD, good analogy. Universal Institute of the Ruby Slippers. That's good.<g> You would have earned an "A" in my creative writing class. Only problem is, you made it all up. It's fiction.
Are you making the same claim for everything that's come down through the ages in regards to Jesus Christ and Christianity? The New Testament account of Jesus is simply rubbish when it comes to the testimonies of divine nature and Sonship of Jesus? I don't know that I'm willing to take that leap of "doubt".
Regards,
MG
How hard is it to believe when you know "the stuff"
-
_truth dancer
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4792
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm
Hi MG...
LOL! Glad you like my new organization! :-)
How do you know Frank Baum wasn't inspired?
My guess is more people throughout the world have read or seen The Wizard of Oz than even know about the Book of Mormon. Millions and millions of lives have been touched for sure! There are some pretty profound teachings that speak to the human heart don't you think?
I'm suggesting humankind resonates with myth.... Think Joseph Campbell here!
Rubbish? No of course not. Similar to all myth throughout the world and throughout history. Yes. We have hundred and hundreds of stories about various Gods, divine spirits, angels, demons, mystical figures... all with profound writings, claims of divinity, ancient texts, spiritual experiences, healing, voices from above etc. etc. etc. etc.
I do not know how one would pick one over any other if they had equal access to all, and understood each in similar ways.
Again, it seems that the vast majority of us find true the story/myth/belief in our family tradition. This phenomenon does not speak to truth.
It has nothing to do with taking a leap of doubt. It has everything to do with looking at a world filled with myth/stories/ancient texts... it has to do with looking at the spiritual experiences of those throughout the world rather than one's own little group. (I'm not saying you do this). It takes understanding the human mind and heart and the need to answer the difficult questions. It has to do with looking at culture, society, and the evolution of ideas and beliefs.
In other words, rather than doubting, why not think of it as seeking for truth in a world filled with ideas and knowledge and experience? Why not expand one's heart to include all sorts of possibilities rather than hold to the need of a one and only true one existing... that happens to be the one in which you were born?
Does that make sense?
:-)
~dancer~
LOL! Glad you like my new organization! :-)
TD, good analogy. Universal Institute of the Ruby Slippers. That's good.<g> You would have earned an "A" in my creative writing class. Only problem is, you made it all up. It's fiction.
How do you know Frank Baum wasn't inspired?
My guess is more people throughout the world have read or seen The Wizard of Oz than even know about the Book of Mormon. Millions and millions of lives have been touched for sure! There are some pretty profound teachings that speak to the human heart don't you think?
Are you making the same claim for everything that's come down through the ages in regards to Jesus Christ and Christianity?
I'm suggesting humankind resonates with myth.... Think Joseph Campbell here!
The New Testament account of Jesus is simply rubbish when it comes to the testimonies of divine nature and Sonship of Jesus?
Rubbish? No of course not. Similar to all myth throughout the world and throughout history. Yes. We have hundred and hundreds of stories about various Gods, divine spirits, angels, demons, mystical figures... all with profound writings, claims of divinity, ancient texts, spiritual experiences, healing, voices from above etc. etc. etc. etc.
I do not know how one would pick one over any other if they had equal access to all, and understood each in similar ways.
Again, it seems that the vast majority of us find true the story/myth/belief in our family tradition. This phenomenon does not speak to truth.
I don't know that I'm willing to take that leap of "doubt".
It has nothing to do with taking a leap of doubt. It has everything to do with looking at a world filled with myth/stories/ancient texts... it has to do with looking at the spiritual experiences of those throughout the world rather than one's own little group. (I'm not saying you do this). It takes understanding the human mind and heart and the need to answer the difficult questions. It has to do with looking at culture, society, and the evolution of ideas and beliefs.
In other words, rather than doubting, why not think of it as seeking for truth in a world filled with ideas and knowledge and experience? Why not expand one's heart to include all sorts of possibilities rather than hold to the need of a one and only true one existing... that happens to be the one in which you were born?
Does that make sense?
:-)
~dancer~
-
_guy sajer
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1372
- Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:16 am
mentalgymnast wrote:hi TD and guy. I think I hear what you're saying, and I agree. We each have our life experience which is uniquely ours. To rely on an authority or system of belief outside of our own selves becomes a leap of faith...and oftentimes logic (to the spiritual "mind") and/or illogic (to the rational mind). To be honest, universalist ideals/ideas appeal to me also. I've talked with some buddies of mine and we are pretty much on the same page that if we ever left our LDS beliefs behind and we didn't become agnostic/atheist, we'd go universalist. But when I look at the LDS system of faith I see universalism built into the theology. Three kingdoms, many mansions, and such.
TD, good analogy. Universal Institute of the Ruby Slippers. That's good.<g> You would have earned an "A" in my creative writing class. Only problem is, you made it all up. It's fiction.
Are you making the same claim for everything that's come down through the ages in regards to Jesus Christ and Christianity? The New Testament account of Jesus is simply rubbish when it comes to the testimonies of divine nature and Sonship of Jesus? I don't know that I'm willing to take that leap of "doubt".
Regards,
MG
Hi MG. I think this is a reasonable response. I too flirted with the idea of Universalism when my belief in Mormonism came crashing down; the problem was that once I applied the same process of reason and evidence to Christianity, and God in general, it all came crashing down too. It was too far gone to even attempt to rescue, nor do I have any desire to attempt a rescue, which is an extremely low probability occurance anyhow.
I personally think its rubbish, but I think TD's response is more reasonable and conciliatory than mine. I understand the role of myth in society; I just have a hard time getting past how destructive that myth often turns out to be. (And I think that the Jesus myth, on balance, has done far more harm than good as it has been internalized and used by adherents.) But I realize that humans beings, for some reason, need myth to give their lives meaning, and if we successfully destroyed the Jesus myth, humans, being who they are, would simply create another myth to take its place, and perhaps one equally or even more harmful.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
-
_mentalgymnast
hi TD. you said: let's look...
MG: TD, here's the gripe I have about you <grin>. You seem to think that in order to look at the world in this way that one is obligated to strip themselves, in the end, from any real religious leanings and/or belief. If all religious traditions/systems are purely myth produced by a higher consciousness within the mind of man...period, then nothing in the religious world is real. It's all fairy tale. Including a creator God who may have created man/women in his likeness/image. Is that pretty close?
Throwing out the God/Jesus of Christianity because of textual criticisms in regards to the Bible (Jesus Seminar and the like) is a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater it seems to me.
As I read K. Armstrong's "Story of God" and "Islam: A Short History", it is somewhat obvious that Judeo-Christian thought and traditions are intertwined with Islamic thought and traditions. Common threads. As one reads about Mithriaism and Zorasterism and sees the parallels with Jesus and others that came along it is easy to see that "something was in the air"...or in the water <g>. Common threads. As one looks at the Axial Age it becomes apparent that something was afoot throughout the whole known world which resulted in a new worldwide consciousness towards spiritual matters.
Common threads.
This was the period of your "myth making". Common threads run throughout.
Yes, I can go along with some of theories postulated in "Guns, Germs, and Steel", that when all is said and done, the "lucid consciousness" was a result of conditions created among individuals/groups which made things ripe for regional changes and opportunities for increased discretionary time, awareness and consciousness (peoples were able to open up their minds to other possibilities besides simply eeking out an existence with limited consciousness of human potential, etc.)
TD, here's the question. Even if this is so, why put the potential or possibility of a supreme power...God...out of the picture? Why simply chalk it all up to pure, unadulterated, Darwinistic chance and probabilities?
Earlier you said,
Indeed.
I don't agree that the God/Jesus of Christianity has to be set aside as mere myth. I see the possibility of a supreme power being behind ALL of the "stuff" going on during the Axial age. I see the possibility of a supreme power being behind Mithriaism and Zorasterism...and Jesus.
I can see the possibility of Jesus being the Son of God, Savior/redeemer of all mankind without negating the reality of what we know about the world and its varied/amazing course of human history and evolution.
I think you would agree that there have been many "paths to enlightenment" throughout the course of world history.
Who's not to say that they all lead somehow to one or more of the "many mansions" that Jesus himself referred to?
For me, the picture is wide and panoramic. Human history is wide and panoramic. Human consciousness is wide and panoramic. Even so...this does not negate the possibility that in the middle and end of all that...Jesus may stand supreme and even be the instigator/promoter/supporter of it all (axial age and whole nine yards), and yet, still be the ultimate exemplar and redeemer of mankind.
Much of what has come down through the ages in regards to Jesus and Jehovah may well indeed be myth and hearsay and human invention.
I could easily see "things" as you and guy and a host of others...many of them right here on this board do.
You know my dad, TD. He and I have had a lot of conversations about whether or not the whole Jesus thing makes any sense. At this point and for a long time now, I've decided that it does and it doesn't.
But, be that as it may, I'm still willing to throw in my lot with the believers, challenging as it may be to do so at times.
Sometimes it does make sense.
Regards,
MG
...at a world filled with myth/stories/ancient texts... it has to do with looking at the spiritual experiences of those throughout the world rather than one's own little group. (I'm not saying you do this). It takes understanding the human mind and heart and the need to answer the difficult questions. It has to do with looking at culture, society, and the evolution of ideas and beliefs...why not think of ...a world filled with ideas and knowledge and experience? Why not expand one's heart to include all sorts of possibilities rather than hold to the need of a one and only true one existing... that happens to be the one in which you were born?
MG: TD, here's the gripe I have about you <grin>. You seem to think that in order to look at the world in this way that one is obligated to strip themselves, in the end, from any real religious leanings and/or belief. If all religious traditions/systems are purely myth produced by a higher consciousness within the mind of man...period, then nothing in the religious world is real. It's all fairy tale. Including a creator God who may have created man/women in his likeness/image. Is that pretty close?
Throwing out the God/Jesus of Christianity because of textual criticisms in regards to the Bible (Jesus Seminar and the like) is a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater it seems to me.
As I read K. Armstrong's "Story of God" and "Islam: A Short History", it is somewhat obvious that Judeo-Christian thought and traditions are intertwined with Islamic thought and traditions. Common threads. As one reads about Mithriaism and Zorasterism and sees the parallels with Jesus and others that came along it is easy to see that "something was in the air"...or in the water <g>. Common threads. As one looks at the Axial Age it becomes apparent that something was afoot throughout the whole known world which resulted in a new worldwide consciousness towards spiritual matters.
Common threads.
From wiki:
"Aspers described the Axial Age as "an interregnum between two ages of great empire, a pause for liberty, a deep breath bringing the most lucid consciousness".[5] Jaspers was particularly interested in the similarities in circumstance and thought of the Age's figures. These similarities included an engagement in the quest for human meaning.[6] and the rise of a new elite class of religious leaders and thinkers in China, India and the Occident.[7] The three regions all gave birth to, and then institutionalized, a tradition of traveling scholars, who roamed from city to city to exchange ideas. These scholars were largely from extant religious traditions; in China, Confucianism and Taoism; in India, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism; in the Occident, the religion of Zarathustra; in Canaan, Judaism; and in Greece, sophism and other classical philosophy."
This was the period of your "myth making". Common threads run throughout.
Yes, I can go along with some of theories postulated in "Guns, Germs, and Steel", that when all is said and done, the "lucid consciousness" was a result of conditions created among individuals/groups which made things ripe for regional changes and opportunities for increased discretionary time, awareness and consciousness (peoples were able to open up their minds to other possibilities besides simply eeking out an existence with limited consciousness of human potential, etc.)
TD, here's the question. Even if this is so, why put the potential or possibility of a supreme power...God...out of the picture? Why simply chalk it all up to pure, unadulterated, Darwinistic chance and probabilities?
Earlier you said,
Why not expand one's heart to include all sorts of possibilities...
Indeed.
I don't agree that the God/Jesus of Christianity has to be set aside as mere myth. I see the possibility of a supreme power being behind ALL of the "stuff" going on during the Axial age. I see the possibility of a supreme power being behind Mithriaism and Zorasterism...and Jesus.
I can see the possibility of Jesus being the Son of God, Savior/redeemer of all mankind without negating the reality of what we know about the world and its varied/amazing course of human history and evolution.
I think you would agree that there have been many "paths to enlightenment" throughout the course of world history.
Who's not to say that they all lead somehow to one or more of the "many mansions" that Jesus himself referred to?
For me, the picture is wide and panoramic. Human history is wide and panoramic. Human consciousness is wide and panoramic. Even so...this does not negate the possibility that in the middle and end of all that...Jesus may stand supreme and even be the instigator/promoter/supporter of it all (axial age and whole nine yards), and yet, still be the ultimate exemplar and redeemer of mankind.
Much of what has come down through the ages in regards to Jesus and Jehovah may well indeed be myth and hearsay and human invention.
I could easily see "things" as you and guy and a host of others...many of them right here on this board do.
You know my dad, TD. He and I have had a lot of conversations about whether or not the whole Jesus thing makes any sense. At this point and for a long time now, I've decided that it does and it doesn't.
But, be that as it may, I'm still willing to throw in my lot with the believers, challenging as it may be to do so at times.
Sometimes it does make sense.
Regards,
MG
-
_mentalgymnast
-
_mentalgymnast
hi TD. you said:
MG: I think that in my previous post(s) you can see that this is pretty much what I've done. The LDS church, even if it is true, is still one microcosmic part of God's overall plan. Now the gospel...that's another matter.<g>
It's been a fun conversation! Thanks for your thoughts, as always. Guy, thanks for your thoughts also. I think I understand partially where you're coming from.
Regards,
MG
Why not expand one's heart to include all sorts of possibilities rather than hold to the need of a one and only true one existing... that happens to be the one in which you were born?
MG: I think that in my previous post(s) you can see that this is pretty much what I've done. The LDS church, even if it is true, is still one microcosmic part of God's overall plan. Now the gospel...that's another matter.<g>
It's been a fun conversation! Thanks for your thoughts, as always. Guy, thanks for your thoughts also. I think I understand partially where you're coming from.
Regards,
MG
-
_truth dancer
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4792
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm
Hey MG...
I've got to go back and respond to your thoughts but briefly... (smile)
The thing is... how much of the doctrine, beliefs, teachings, ideas of the church can one let go of and still believe it is the one and only true church upon the earth with God at the helm?
OK... so tell me if this is close to your belief.
You think the Jesus Story is true, so there is some sort of power and authority God gave to a specific group of men; and one specific church that God is directing more than all the others but God directs others too, to some degree. In this one and only true church (at least more true than the others and with the full power and authority of God), God sometimes fine tunes the church but mostly sits back. But in other churches, God may or may not also give direction on occasion?
I go back to the question.... if there was a one and only true church, or the real power of God, or some actual authority God gives to a few men, wouldn't we be able to see some evidence of this? Wouldn't there be something different besides its claims? Wouldn't the power be something more than the power of everyone else in the world? Wouldn't there be something that would separate it from the rest of the world? Maybe great advancments? Maybe leading the world in peace and kindness in some way? Truly making a difference in the world? Maybe the believers would be more holy? Or more powerful? Or more kind? Maybe they would make a difference in the world unlike the rest of the world? Wouldn't there be something?
Even if I go with the assumption that there is a one and only true church, MY personal opinion would be that if God is directing a church there would be some sort of evidence of Godly intervention. I have to hold the idea that if God did indeed have a reason to have Godly authority on the earth (this idea has NEVER made any sort of sense to me), there would be some need for it, or reason for it, or we would be able to at the very least recognize it as something other than humanness.
Is this expectation completely unrealistic to you?
Should I lower my expectation to be that there is no difference between a church directed by God and those directed by humans? God's power is no different than the power of every individual? God's authority to act in his name is no different than humans behaving in the best way they know how? We have no real way to tell which church is the one directed by God so just go with the one your parent tell you is true and hope? The prophets, although they are in communion with Christ personally, have no more insight than any other person who claims to be communicating with the divine (or even those who don't make this claim)?
Do you see my difficulty with the lowering of expectations concerning God and a one and only true church?
~dancer~
I've got to go back and respond to your thoughts but briefly... (smile)
The thing is... how much of the doctrine, beliefs, teachings, ideas of the church can one let go of and still believe it is the one and only true church upon the earth with God at the helm?
OK... so tell me if this is close to your belief.
You think the Jesus Story is true, so there is some sort of power and authority God gave to a specific group of men; and one specific church that God is directing more than all the others but God directs others too, to some degree. In this one and only true church (at least more true than the others and with the full power and authority of God), God sometimes fine tunes the church but mostly sits back. But in other churches, God may or may not also give direction on occasion?
I go back to the question.... if there was a one and only true church, or the real power of God, or some actual authority God gives to a few men, wouldn't we be able to see some evidence of this? Wouldn't there be something different besides its claims? Wouldn't the power be something more than the power of everyone else in the world? Wouldn't there be something that would separate it from the rest of the world? Maybe great advancments? Maybe leading the world in peace and kindness in some way? Truly making a difference in the world? Maybe the believers would be more holy? Or more powerful? Or more kind? Maybe they would make a difference in the world unlike the rest of the world? Wouldn't there be something?
Even if I go with the assumption that there is a one and only true church, MY personal opinion would be that if God is directing a church there would be some sort of evidence of Godly intervention. I have to hold the idea that if God did indeed have a reason to have Godly authority on the earth (this idea has NEVER made any sort of sense to me), there would be some need for it, or reason for it, or we would be able to at the very least recognize it as something other than humanness.
Is this expectation completely unrealistic to you?
Should I lower my expectation to be that there is no difference between a church directed by God and those directed by humans? God's power is no different than the power of every individual? God's authority to act in his name is no different than humans behaving in the best way they know how? We have no real way to tell which church is the one directed by God so just go with the one your parent tell you is true and hope? The prophets, although they are in communion with Christ personally, have no more insight than any other person who claims to be communicating with the divine (or even those who don't make this claim)?
Do you see my difficulty with the lowering of expectations concerning God and a one and only true church?
~dancer~
-
_mentalgymnast
hi TD. not done yet, huh? <g> let's try and get some closure on this.
MG: it's not a matter of letting go. It's a matter of getting a grasp of.
MG: yeah, simply put that's pretty close to what makes sense to me. Sort of universalist in thought, I suppose.
MG: Ok. Let's get down to the nitty gritty.
Temples.
The GA's constantly teach to "look to the temple". This is the earthly endgame (and another beginning landmark) of being a member of the church. To make sacred covenants in the temple. Everything else leads up to that. Baptism, priesthood, commandments, sacrament, and so forth. It is temples and the requirements for participating in the ordinances there that make the church unique. In order to attend the temple and member must be "temple worthy". Now does this necessarily make that individual better than their neighbor down the street? No, not necessarily. Think about the TR questions. A number of them have to do with belief. Some of them have to do with practice. If there is anything that would differentiate someone who is LDS from their friends and neighbors, it would simply be that they can answer the TR interview questions in the affirmative and thus participate in sealing ordinances in the temple.
It's the sealing powers that make the church unique and different from the surrounding churches, belief systems, and culture. It's the sealing power/authority that can have an impact in the here and now, and in the hereafter. This is the crux of the whole thing.
Now, let's for a moment look at a few scriptures that are foundational to the whole LDS paradigm/belief. This is why the GA's are constantly harping on the family. These scriptures are basically the catalyst for why they do so.
Matthew 16...talking to the apostle Peter:
Ancient record. Ancient belief.
Now let's go to D&C 128: 8,10, 14:
TD, if you're walking down the street are you going to be able to see an LDS member walking down the street as being different from the rest of the crowd? No. As you are at the supermarket are you going to be able to tell a member of the church from the rest of the crowd at first glance? No. Yada, yada, yada. I'm not sure quite what you're expecting. Members of the church are part of the surrounding culture. Yes, now and then some of them might stand out for one reason or another, but on the whole we blend in pretty well with our friends and neighbors. Would you have it any other way?
Now, if a member of the church is living up to their temple covenants and they can sit throught a TR and answer the questions honestly in the affirmative are they living at/to a higher standard than many in the surrounding culture(s)? Yes. But that's about all you can say unless you're going to do some kind of detailed scientific study.
MG: yes, but I think it has mainly to do with your own issues and self-created bubble of belief/practice/understanding that you're living inside. I think that it is you that has restricted/conformed your views to a narrow standard/requirement (in regards to what the church should or shouldn't be) and are unable, at least at this point, to see a bigger, broader view of this world we live in.
Again, I enjoy your thoughts. Please don't take my final statement in this post as being mean spirited. It isn't meant that way. It's just the way I see it. <g>
Regards,
MG
The thing is... how much of the doctrine, beliefs, teachings, ideas of the church can one let go of and still believe it is the one and only true church upon the earth with God at the helm?
MG: it's not a matter of letting go. It's a matter of getting a grasp of.
You think the Jesus Story is true, so there is some sort of power and authority God gave to a specific group of men; and one specific church that God is directing more than all the others but God directs others too, to some degree. In this one and only true church (at least more true than the others and with the full power and authority of God), God sometimes fine tunes the church but mostly sits back. But in other churches, God may or may not also give direction on occasion?
MG: yeah, simply put that's pretty close to what makes sense to me. Sort of universalist in thought, I suppose.
Even if I go with the assumption that there is a one and only true church, MY personal opinion would be that if God is directing a church there would be some sort of evidence of Godly intervention. I have to hold the idea that if God did indeed have a reason to have Godly authority on the earth (this idea has NEVER made any sort of sense to me), there would be some need for it, or reason for it, or we would be able to at the very least recognize it as something other than humanness.
MG: Ok. Let's get down to the nitty gritty.
Temples.
The GA's constantly teach to "look to the temple". This is the earthly endgame (and another beginning landmark) of being a member of the church. To make sacred covenants in the temple. Everything else leads up to that. Baptism, priesthood, commandments, sacrament, and so forth. It is temples and the requirements for participating in the ordinances there that make the church unique. In order to attend the temple and member must be "temple worthy". Now does this necessarily make that individual better than their neighbor down the street? No, not necessarily. Think about the TR questions. A number of them have to do with belief. Some of them have to do with practice. If there is anything that would differentiate someone who is LDS from their friends and neighbors, it would simply be that they can answer the TR interview questions in the affirmative and thus participate in sealing ordinances in the temple.
It's the sealing powers that make the church unique and different from the surrounding churches, belief systems, and culture. It's the sealing power/authority that can have an impact in the here and now, and in the hereafter. This is the crux of the whole thing.
Now, let's for a moment look at a few scriptures that are foundational to the whole LDS paradigm/belief. This is why the GA's are constantly harping on the family. These scriptures are basically the catalyst for why they do so.
Matthew 16...talking to the apostle Peter:
And I will agive unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Ancient record. Ancient belief.
Now let's go to D&C 128: 8,10, 14:
8 Now, the nature of this ordinance consists in the apower of the priesthood, by the revelation of Jesus Christ, wherein it is granted that whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Or, in other words, taking a different view of the translation, whatsoever you record on earth shall be recorded in heaven, and whatsoever you do not record on earth shall not be recorded in heaven; for out of the books shall your dead be judged, according to their own works, whether they themselves have attended to the cordinances in their own propria persona, or by the means of their own agents, according to the ordinance which God has prepared for their salvation from before the foundation of the world, according to the records which they have kept concerning their dead.
• • •
10 And again, for the precedent, Matthew 16:18, 19: And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
• • •
14 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as are the records on the earth in relation to your dead, which are truly made out, so also are the records in heaven. This, therefore, is the sealing and binding power, and, in one sense of the word, the keys of the kingdom, which consist in the key of knowledge.
TD, if you're walking down the street are you going to be able to see an LDS member walking down the street as being different from the rest of the crowd? No. As you are at the supermarket are you going to be able to tell a member of the church from the rest of the crowd at first glance? No. Yada, yada, yada. I'm not sure quite what you're expecting. Members of the church are part of the surrounding culture. Yes, now and then some of them might stand out for one reason or another, but on the whole we blend in pretty well with our friends and neighbors. Would you have it any other way?
Now, if a member of the church is living up to their temple covenants and they can sit throught a TR and answer the questions honestly in the affirmative are they living at/to a higher standard than many in the surrounding culture(s)? Yes. But that's about all you can say unless you're going to do some kind of detailed scientific study.
Do you see my difficulty with the lowering of expectations concerning God and a one and only true church?
MG: yes, but I think it has mainly to do with your own issues and self-created bubble of belief/practice/understanding that you're living inside. I think that it is you that has restricted/conformed your views to a narrow standard/requirement (in regards to what the church should or shouldn't be) and are unable, at least at this point, to see a bigger, broader view of this world we live in.
Again, I enjoy your thoughts. Please don't take my final statement in this post as being mean spirited. It isn't meant that way. It's just the way I see it. <g>
Regards,
MG
-
_truth dancer
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4792
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm
Hi MG...
Don't worry, I would never take anything you say as mean spirited! I know you better than that! :-)
In terms of the temple... this whole thing is a "claim". Nothing more.
Anyone can claim anything. Billions of people, the world over claim they will receive Moksha if they follow the path of enlightenment. The have the ancient texts to back up their claims. Does this make it true? Have you read the claims of Scientology latley? The claims in Islam?
I don't understand why you think claiming something means it is so. Or are you saying it is a possibility? If so, is it any different than any of the other millions of claims that are a possibility?
In terms of those who pass the TRI living a "higher" standard, I completely disagree. They may be living a different standard than others (I don't know others who think drinking tea or coffee would keep them out of heaven), but certainly the TRI questions have nothing to do with one's heart nor do they give any glimpse into the goodness, compassion, care, humility, etc, etc of the interviewee. One can be a pretty nasty, mean spirited, cruel, horrible person and still pass the TRI with flying colors!
But more to the point.... (smile)
So, you think my own issues are what is keeping me from believing in the truth claims of the church? (Like I haven't heard this before)! LOL! This and Satan! ;-)
So, you think my self-created bubble of belief/practice/understanding that I am living inside is what keeps me from believing.
You are probably right.... (well not the "practice" part, but certainly belief and understanding).
I have very deep seated ideas of what is good, holy, compassionate, kind, caring, sacred, and loving... I spent a lot of years trying to convince myself that my own understanding/experience/paradigm was askew and that what was bad was good, what was good was bad. It just really didn't work for me. I came to a place where, for my own mental, emotional, physical health and well-being, I had to follow my heart and mind.
But, I do agree that I could really be wrong and maybe I am way off base. I truly do understand that my way may be really off the mark. Still, my brain and heart can't be forced to accept things that seem so wrong, as right; and things that seem so right, wrong. Many years ago I came to terms with the idea that I am not one of the chosen! I'm OK with that.
In terms of my expectations, I don't think these are of my creation. The church makes some pretty big claims. If the church stated things more like: we are one of the ways to finding truth, we sometimes commune with God, the prophet shares his opinion but may at times receive inspiration, we teach the philosophies of men mingled with our best understanding at the time, you don't really need to follow the prophet if you don't think he is inspired, the leaders are just men and our church is not much different than all the others, etc. etc. etc..... well then my expectations wouldn't be quite what they are.
But, having said that... I disagree that I am not able to look at the bigger world in which we live. The reason I do not believe the LDS church claims is BECAUSE I have looked at the larger world. The more I understand the belief of others the more I am convinced that the LDS church is no different than any others. The more I have expanded my knowledge of belief, the purpose of myth, the workings of our universe, the story of humanity, etc. etc. etc., the more I cannot embrace the LDS church's claims.
In other words, I am not trying to hold onto a particular belief that may be possible, because ALL of them are equally possible. Rather than convince myself that a particular church is the one and only true one, (which just happens to be the one in which I was raised), I am open to the idea that any one of a million may be the true one since there is virtually no evidence that one is more true or better or divinely inspired any more than any other. Rather than closing my mind to millions of beliefs but one, I am open to the fact that if there is a one and only true one, any one of a million may be it.
I don't see how this is being closed. Unless close minded means not open to a particular church being the one and only when there is no evidence it is so. :-)
~dancer~
Don't worry, I would never take anything you say as mean spirited! I know you better than that! :-)
In terms of the temple... this whole thing is a "claim". Nothing more.
Anyone can claim anything. Billions of people, the world over claim they will receive Moksha if they follow the path of enlightenment. The have the ancient texts to back up their claims. Does this make it true? Have you read the claims of Scientology latley? The claims in Islam?
I don't understand why you think claiming something means it is so. Or are you saying it is a possibility? If so, is it any different than any of the other millions of claims that are a possibility?
In terms of those who pass the TRI living a "higher" standard, I completely disagree. They may be living a different standard than others (I don't know others who think drinking tea or coffee would keep them out of heaven), but certainly the TRI questions have nothing to do with one's heart nor do they give any glimpse into the goodness, compassion, care, humility, etc, etc of the interviewee. One can be a pretty nasty, mean spirited, cruel, horrible person and still pass the TRI with flying colors!
But more to the point.... (smile)
MG: yes, but I think it has mainly to do with your own issues and self-created bubble of belief/practice/understanding that you're living inside. I think that it is you that has restricted/conformed your views to a narrow standard/requirement (in regards to what the church should or shouldn't be) and are unable, at least at this point, to see a bigger, broader view of this world we live in.
So, you think my own issues are what is keeping me from believing in the truth claims of the church? (Like I haven't heard this before)! LOL! This and Satan! ;-)
So, you think my self-created bubble of belief/practice/understanding that I am living inside is what keeps me from believing.
You are probably right.... (well not the "practice" part, but certainly belief and understanding).
I have very deep seated ideas of what is good, holy, compassionate, kind, caring, sacred, and loving... I spent a lot of years trying to convince myself that my own understanding/experience/paradigm was askew and that what was bad was good, what was good was bad. It just really didn't work for me. I came to a place where, for my own mental, emotional, physical health and well-being, I had to follow my heart and mind.
But, I do agree that I could really be wrong and maybe I am way off base. I truly do understand that my way may be really off the mark. Still, my brain and heart can't be forced to accept things that seem so wrong, as right; and things that seem so right, wrong. Many years ago I came to terms with the idea that I am not one of the chosen! I'm OK with that.
In terms of my expectations, I don't think these are of my creation. The church makes some pretty big claims. If the church stated things more like: we are one of the ways to finding truth, we sometimes commune with God, the prophet shares his opinion but may at times receive inspiration, we teach the philosophies of men mingled with our best understanding at the time, you don't really need to follow the prophet if you don't think he is inspired, the leaders are just men and our church is not much different than all the others, etc. etc. etc..... well then my expectations wouldn't be quite what they are.
But, having said that... I disagree that I am not able to look at the bigger world in which we live. The reason I do not believe the LDS church claims is BECAUSE I have looked at the larger world. The more I understand the belief of others the more I am convinced that the LDS church is no different than any others. The more I have expanded my knowledge of belief, the purpose of myth, the workings of our universe, the story of humanity, etc. etc. etc., the more I cannot embrace the LDS church's claims.
In other words, I am not trying to hold onto a particular belief that may be possible, because ALL of them are equally possible. Rather than convince myself that a particular church is the one and only true one, (which just happens to be the one in which I was raised), I am open to the idea that any one of a million may be the true one since there is virtually no evidence that one is more true or better or divinely inspired any more than any other. Rather than closing my mind to millions of beliefs but one, I am open to the fact that if there is a one and only true one, any one of a million may be it.
I don't see how this is being closed. Unless close minded means not open to a particular church being the one and only when there is no evidence it is so. :-)
~dancer~
-
_mentalgymnast
hi TD. you said:
MG: I may have been a bit too tactful however.
MG: The church does proclaim the gospel to be true and does proclaim that temples are holy edifices dedicated to God where sacred ordinances/work is done for the living and the dead. The "nothing more" part of your statement of course is where things get a bit messy. Nice way to end a sentence, but it may not be the end of the story.
You asked what makes the church different and how would aliens visiting the earth be able to discern the true church. Temples do make the church different, but yes...you're right. I suppose that I can agree that aliens would not be able to discern whether or not truth was being disseminated within the walls of the temple, especially since they probably don't have current temple recommends. Unless they received them on their home planet before coming to visit the earth. <g>
MG: I can value that.
MG: I suppose this is where we'll have to part ways in this conversation. You say "no evidence". In this thread I've brought up the Book of Mormon being an evidence of the restoration. The Book of Mormon still stands. It has withstood the attacks against it. Gosh, you have people such as Vogel and Uncle Dale that have worn themselves weary trying to come up with alternate explanations for the Book of Mormon...and they disagree with each other!!
To say that there is no evidence at all is a stretch. If that was the case, I would have said adios to the church a few years ago. I'm still hanging in there...
Regards,
MG
Don't worry, I would never take anything you say as mean spirited! I know you better than that! :-)
MG: I may have been a bit too tactful however.
In terms of the temple... this whole thing is a "claim". Nothing more.
MG: The church does proclaim the gospel to be true and does proclaim that temples are holy edifices dedicated to God where sacred ordinances/work is done for the living and the dead. The "nothing more" part of your statement of course is where things get a bit messy. Nice way to end a sentence, but it may not be the end of the story.
You asked what makes the church different and how would aliens visiting the earth be able to discern the true church. Temples do make the church different, but yes...you're right. I suppose that I can agree that aliens would not be able to discern whether or not truth was being disseminated within the walls of the temple, especially since they probably don't have current temple recommends. Unless they received them on their home planet before coming to visit the earth. <g>
I have very deep seated ideas of what is good, holy, compassionate, kind, caring, sacred, and loving... I spent a lot of years trying to convince myself that my own understanding/experience/paradigm was askew and that what was bad was good, what was good was bad. It just really didn't work for me. I came to a place where, for my own mental, emotional, physical health and well-being, I had to follow my heart and mind.
But, I do agree that I could really be wrong and maybe I am way off base. I truly do understand that my way may be really off the mark. Still, my brain and heart can't be forced to accept things that seem so wrong, as right; and things that seem so right, wrong. Many years ago I came to terms with the idea that I am not one of the chosen! I'm OK with that.
MG: I can value that.
[if]...close minded means not open to a particular church being the one and only when there is no evidence it is so.
MG: I suppose this is where we'll have to part ways in this conversation. You say "no evidence". In this thread I've brought up the Book of Mormon being an evidence of the restoration. The Book of Mormon still stands. It has withstood the attacks against it. Gosh, you have people such as Vogel and Uncle Dale that have worn themselves weary trying to come up with alternate explanations for the Book of Mormon...and they disagree with each other!!
To say that there is no evidence at all is a stretch. If that was the case, I would have said adios to the church a few years ago. I'm still hanging in there...
Regards,
MG