Home Page › Forums › Introductions › finding my way – by way of re-introduction

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 34 total)
1 2 3
  • Author
    Posts
  • July 18, 2012 at 5:47 pm #255833
    Anonymous
    Guest

    bc_pg wrote:

    I’m paraphrasing several of your points, but essentially you see the LDS restored church & gospel as the vehicle to the truth.


    the gospel is “all truth”. truth exists independently from the church. the church can be a vehicle for truth of a certain type, as i noted here in one of my ‘theses’:

  • – I believe that scripture, church history, and church teaching are symbollically true and necessary to help us learn eternal ideas that are not apparent from evidence alone.


    •  The idea of an afterlife may be true or not, but it isn’t proven from any evidence at this point. Did we live before? Do we endure after? Nothing here is proven: if a person actually lived before, the veil prevents any proof of it. If a person lives beyond this life, then “proof” would be an unmistakable voyage to and from the afterlife in a way that could not be mistaken from a dream or premotion: again, an unprovable. If John the Baptist came back from the afterlife and ordained Joseph and Oliver in the flesh, ‘proof’ would be in some form that could not or would not be suspect to the concept of ‘spiritual eyes’.

    We don’t have proof for these things. They are neither proven or disproven, so to say the ‘truth’ is to say ‘we don’t know’. That is a very important concept:


  • the Truth of church teachings of things unprovable is that we don’t know    .

    • To say otherwise is not the truth.

    bc_pg wrote:

    From what I’ve observed the gospel & church (as nearly all religions) is based largely on dogma.

    churches do in part, but the LDS church does not use the term. gospel has nothing whatsoever to do with dogma. gospel is that to which the church points, but does not embody.

    bc_pg wrote:

    Dogma, essentially assumes “something” to be truth and endeavors to prove that “something” true instead of looking at the evidence to determine what is true. An extreme example is at one point in history the dogma was that the earth was the center of the universe. Those who endeavored to show otherwise were labelled heretics and even killed by the religious. In much the same way scientific truths such as evolution are often dismissed and take longer to spread because of religious dogma.

    The LDS Church does not use the term dogma, which tends to be used more by the Roman Catholic church to express the following:

    Catholic Encyclopedia wrote:

    dogma is now understood to be a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful. It might be described briefly as a revealed truth defined by the Church — but private revelations do not constitute dogmas, and some theologians confine the word defined to doctrines solemnly defined by the pope or by a general council, while a revealed truth becomes a dogma even when proposed by the Church through her ordinary magisterium or teaching office. A dogma therefore implies a twofold relation: to Divine revelation and to the authoritative teaching of the Church.


    While there is no need within catholicism to ‘prove’ dogma, Christian apologetics tend to defend the dogma as you say, ‘something true’ that you’re proving to be true.

    All investigation begins with an hypothesis, so the idea of looking for evidence without an hypothesis to determine ‘what is true’ doesn’t make a lot of sense. On the other extreme, however, dogma does not start with an hypothesis, but rather, a thesis in dogma, that cannot be denied because by definition it is true.

    This flies directly in the face of the idea that in the first vision, God found something “abominable” about the creeds. I have always wondered about this, because they are simply statements of belief, and the apostles creed, with the very close nicene has little to nothing that LDS would find to be ‘false doctrine’, or certainly not ‘abominable’.

    the only logical conclusion of what god found abominable in the creeds was the idea of a creed generally: the idea that the church declares or decrees (dogmatum) the ‘truth’ without substantiation and requiring blind acceptance by members.

    If the LDS church ‘decrees’ any belief by fiat, what is it? Does the LDS declare “you must believe x”? Or, does it say, as a result of correlation, that “you must teach x”? The church has not told me what I must accept and know to be true, except through peer pressure, assumption, and implication.

    Even the ‘Wentworth letter’ is not decreed dogma. We use the Articles of Faith, included as ‘official doctrine’ in the PoGP, but we do not demand that a person believe it, even if it says ‘we believe’.

    Consider the following:

    Ed Eyring, father of Henry Eyring, grandfather of Henry B. Eyring wrote:

    I’m convinced that the Lord used the Prophet Joseph Smith to restore His Church. For me that is a reality. I haven’t a

    ny doubt about it. Now, there are a lot of other matters which are much less clear to me. But in this Church you don’t have to believe anything that isn’t true. You go over to the University of Arizona and learn everything you can, and whatever is true is part of the gospel.


    I think this is as close to a working model of how we should behave in the church.

    bc_pg wrote:

    So how do you reconcile this? Do you disagree that dogma often fights against truth? Do you disagree that the LDS church & gospel is dogmatic?

    Or as, I suspect, have you found a path through these issues? If so I am curious what your thought process has been in so doing.


    dogma completely fights against truth, therefore I categorically reject dogma, or anything like it, as being relevant to me. If something is true, then I should accept it. If something is false, I should reject it. If something is unproven or unprovable, then I should suspend judgment. This is a standard of truth that endures through the ages.

July 18, 2012 at 5:55 pm #255834
Anonymous
Guest

@wayfarer

Thank you for your explanation. As I had expected it was well thought out and enlightening.

July 18, 2012 at 6:13 pm #255835
Anonymous
Guest

cwald wrote:

The LDS church is a divine pathway, one of many pathways, that some people can follow to find the gods, and peace in this life, and perhaps the next.


Great statement, and I agree at least 90% ;-) The challenge is that it doesn’t define with clarity the things you don’t believe in any longer, except perhaps “one true church” and the idea of a single god — which, actually, I don’t really know what you mean when you say ‘the gods’.

This is not directed at you: I find a lot of gurus and people who waffle around core divine principles in a way that safely says they don’t know. When I talk to zen-types, getting tangible clarity as to what they believe becomes a Koan. Such obscurity is horse manure, in my humble opinion.

Hence, at some point, it would be nice to call a spade a spade regarding our belief.

Ilovechrist77 wrote:

How are you still able to be active in the church with all those unorthodox beliefs? I couldn’t do it. There would be too much conflict inside me?


I have said befoe that I stayLDS because it’s my tribe, and having journed through all faith systems, they all have baggage, they all point, but they all fall short of the point to which they point. Yet, it’s lonely being out there without a community. And the LDS community, as I say, is my tribe, and I’m loyal to my tribe.

as for conflict within me? none. (most of the time, however). I have determined what I believe, and I’m at peace with it.

Besides, that, there is the gospel, which exists outside of the church, there is the Church itself, and then there is what we choose to believe of the church. I have found that if I focus on the restored gospel: that is, the idea the religion is subordinate to bona-fide truth, then all else falls into line after that. It puts in perspective that humans typically are afraid of real live naked truth, and in compassion, we can work with people line upon line and precept upon precept.

Does it get frustrating? yeah. But this all sounds arrogant. I may have a perspective on ‘truth’ that many in the church refuse to understand, but I have many other defects that people in the church do and are better at overcoming than I am. In humility, we all have gifts differing, and acceptance of others, both good and not-so-good, is part of the reality of life.

Importantly, the church requires that people teaching and preaching talk along correlated, orthodox lines. I do this. It’s a convention that allows us to not upset people’s applecarts in the church building. I don’t teach or preach what I don’t believe, so I try to find common ground in what I believe and what I know the church teaches, and focus my attention there.

Here is what I said about the church, and why I stay, in my ‘theses’:

  • – I believe the church exists to help provide the framework for us to come to all truth.

    – I believe that we ought to participate in the church to assist us in becoming more whole human beings, to support one another, and to help us become one.

    – I believe that scripture, church history, and church teaching are symbollically true and necessary to help us learn eternal ideas that are not apparent from evidence alone.

    – I believe that active membership in the church requires one to teach according to the requirements of the church within the culture of the church and edify those whom I teach.


    •  I think it important to consider that the Middle Way, to me, is consistent with the teachings of confucius. Here is something I wrote in my blog around the topic of “Redefining the god of my understanding“

    Confucius didn’t speak of faith, but he did participate in the ritual faithfully. Here is a snippet of the Lun Yu – the Analects:

    Confucius wrote:

    Some one asked the meaning of the great sacrifice. The Master said, “I do not know. He who knew its meaning would find it as easy to govern the kingdom as to look on this;— pointing to his palm.

    He sacrificed to the dead, as if they were present. He sacrificed to the spirits, as if the spirits were present.

    The Master said, “I consider my not being present at the sacrifice, as if I did not sacrifice.”

    Wang-sun Chia asked, saying, “What is the meaning of the saying, “It is better to pay court to the furnace than to the south-west corner?”“

    The Master said, “Not so. He who offends against Heaven has none to whom he can pray.”


    Some of this language is hard to understand. The bottom line is that he did not know the nature of god (the great sacrifice), did not think the spirits or ancestors were actually present — yet he worshipped and prayed with sincerity. Given a choice between the furnace (symbolic of the practical aspects of life) versus the south-west corner (the area of worship in the house), he chose the place of worship — prayer has a purpose, and to reject god entirely leaves one without a god to pray to. So, a rational man, Confucius prayed, went through the rituals with all respect to the spirits he knew were not present. Yet in his mind, he did the actions, and prayed to god regardless, and found personal benefit thereby.

    July 18, 2012 at 10:16 pm #255836
    Anonymous
    Guest

    wayfarer wrote:

    Nephite wrote:

    I guess we will have to disagree on that.


    Isn’t the first time, and I am certain it won’t be the last. But I am curious…which part of my last message do you reject? Do you reject Lorenzo Snow’s couplet? Do you accept the God of the creeds?


    I don’t reject the saying “As man is god once was, as god is man may become.” I mostly believe it. I disagree with your statement that if the couplet is true, “then there is no god outside of humanity.” If Heavenly Father was once a man, I believe it was in another universe and He is the God of this universe. He is outside of and above humanity. I’m not sure what you mean by “God of the creeds” so I can’t answer that part of your question.

    July 18, 2012 at 10:45 pm #255837
    Anonymous
    Guest

    wayfarer wrote:

    We don’t have proof for these things. They are neither proven or disproven, so to say the ‘truth’ is to say ‘we don’t know’. That is a very important concept:


  • the Truth of church teachings of things unprovable is that we don’t know    .

    • To say otherwise is not the truth.


    fwiw, I believe people can know.

    Quote:

    If the LDS church ‘decrees’ any belief by fiat, what is it? Does the LDS declare “you must believe x”? Or, does it say, as a result of correlation, that “you must teach x”? The church has not told me what I must accept and know to be true, except through peer pressure, assumption, and implication.

    Even the ‘Wentworth letter’ is not decreed dogma. We use the Articles of Faith, included as ‘official doctrine’ in the PoGP, but we do not demand that a person believe it, even if it says ‘we believe’.


    When I interviewed people before they were baptized during my mission, they did have to believe in order to join the church. I also maintain that one must have a testimony of the “LDS version” of the Godhead, etc., to get a temple recommend. I know you don’t see it that way, though.

    July 19, 2012 at 2:09 am #255838
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Nephite wrote:

    wayfarer wrote:

    Even the ‘Wentworth letter’ is not decreed dogma. We use the Articles of Faith, included as ‘official doctrine’ in the PoGP, but we do not demand that a person believe it, even if it says ‘we believe’.


    When I interviewed people before they were baptized during my mission, they did have to believe in order to join the church. I also maintain that one must have a testimony of the “LDS version” of the Godhead, etc., to get a temple recommend. I know you don’t see it that way, though.


    my answer to the question of whether i have faith in and a testimony of god the eternal father, his son jesus christ, and the holy ghost is “Yes absolutely”. that is the common denominator of belief.

    please help me with something. which LDS version did you use on your mission? did you ask people if they believe that god is an exalted man who no longer is a man but was one on another planet in another universe and now lives on a planet called kolob, who, as a physical corporeal being can simultaneously be in any given place at once answering your prayers, who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, yet allowed the holocaust to kill millions of innocent men women and children and is willing to send aver a third of his children to and endless place of torture, who is unchangeable from everlasting to everlasting, yet was once a mortal man?

    as long as you maintain that people “must have a testimony of the “LDS version” of the Godhead, etc., to get a temple recommend”, then you are forcing a rigidity that is above the standard, and is unhealthy fo all those who are struggling to stayLDS as they learn of the myriad, conflicting positions LDS prophets have speculated about the nature of god.

    what is your point in saying we must fully believe the so called standard definition in order to be a full participant in the church including a TR?

    Nephite wrote:

    I disagree with your statement that if the couplet is true, “then there is no god outside of humanity.” If Heavenly Father was once a man, I believe it was in another universe and He is the God of this universe.


    i am curious if you have scriptural or official doctrine support your opinion (1) that God originated in another universe, and (2) that god is no longer a man. if this is your opinion only, and is not to be found in the official doctrine of the church, then how is it that you disparage my opinion, which is entirely derived from scripture, as being unacceptable for a temple recommend interview?

    Nephite wrote:

    He is outside of and above humanity.


    how can that be the case? And all these years in the church, i thought he was literally our father…

    i guess i was wrong, my bad.

    but i am so curious, how do you reconcile the following if god is “no longer a man” as you say.

    One of Jesus’ names is Son of Man. Who is the “Man”?

    God is called “Man of Holiness”. Who is the “Man”?

    If god is no longer a man, then why is he the Man in the above two titles of god?

    If the resurrected Christ was no longer a man, what was the point of showing the prints of the nails, and his eating with the apostles after his resurrection?

    According to LDS Doctrine, God has an immortal, resurrected human body, identical to Jesus. how, then, is God then outside of humanity?

    Does it help for you to relate to god to think of him as an alien from another planet that is outside and above humanity, or does it help in prayer to relate another human, albeit exalted, who has had every experience i have had as a human?

    what did the psalmist mean in psalms 82 and jesus mean in John 10 when they used the expression “ye are gods” to refer to living humans?

    if Dieter Uchtdorf refers to our mortal existence as being in the middle of our eternal lives, and that we will always be in the middle of our eternal lives, then how is god a different kind of being than a human?

    What does the term “eternal progression” mean to you?

    Nephite wrote:

    I’m not sure what you mean by “God of the creeds” so I can’t answer that part of your question.


    the creeds developed a position that god was without body, parts, or passions, that god was “uncreated” and has never been corporeal. Missionaries In my time were required to know this, maybe in your mission experience you didn’t teach that the creeds were wrong specifically in the definition of god versus lds teaching that god is an exalted man. i must be confused, because as part of the gospel essentials class I taught as Ward Mission Leader three years ago, it is taught as an integral part of the lesson of the first vision and in the plan of salvation lesson.

    July 19, 2012 at 3:36 am #255839
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Nephite and wayfarer, this is getting dangerously close to a classic argument – from both sides – and it’s getting dangerously close to condescension and rejection of opinion – from both sides.

    Please, be careful. Sometimes, “I see we disagree fundamentally”, is enough. There’s nothing wrong with exploring different opinions, but please be careful.

    July 19, 2012 at 1:29 pm #255840
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Quote:

    Wayfarer posts his “ninety-five theses” on the wall of StayLDS.com.

    I always love your views my friend. Glad to have you in our community.

    ^lol

    Seriously, thank you for posting that, I am working on framing a similar statement for myself. It is tough going though. I don’t anticipate it is something I will ever be done with.

    July 19, 2012 at 1:47 pm #255841
    Anonymous
    Guest

    rebeccad wrote:

    I am working on framing a similar statement for myself. It is tough going though. I don’t anticipate it is something I will ever be done with.


    I had actually posted my first statement of belief on my blog some time ago. But I had framed it in terms of positives mostly. I wasn’t willing to publicly put a stake into the ground about the areas I no longer believe, leaving it up to the reader to figure that out.

    But I think that stating non-belief is quite important. It takes a bit of courage, because there are so many statements about how non-believers will go to hell, etc. I don’t believe those statements now either, at all. I seriously reject the idea that an enlightened god will punish those who seek the truth.

    July 19, 2012 at 3:17 pm #255842
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Old-Timer wrote:

    Nephite and wayfarer, this is getting dangerously close to a classic argument – from both sides – and it’s getting dangerously close to condescension and rejection of opinion – from both sides.

    Please, be careful. Sometimes, “I see we disagree fundamentally”, is enough. There’s nothing wrong with exploring different opinions, but please be careful.


    I am truly sorry if my words came across as condescending. I don’t think I was actually being that way, but I know my tone of voice cannot really really be “seen” here.

    July 19, 2012 at 4:45 pm #255843
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Quote:

    wayfarer wrote: I seriously reject the idea that an enlightened god will punish those who seek the truth.

    After being raised in a very intolerant TBM society I began to

    Adopt there views. When I reached my mid-late teens I began to have friends from many countries and many faiths.

    My views changed over time as I began to accept my friends weren’t lost or influenced by evil. I began to try to understand and learn all about them and accept the truths and adapt the good parts of thier culture to my own life. I began to realize we all had truths and things to contribute. I began journey to what people refer to as very “international”.

    In short, I have been transformed by my significant international experience and can never go back to the belief that punishes those you seek the truth. I have learned to accept what I have learned from each cultures own truth. When I tied to fight against it at first i was in internal conflict until I just learned to accept what I learned.

    I’m curious wayfarer. Do you have a lot of international cultureal experience?

    July 19, 2012 at 5:51 pm #255844
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Forgotten_Charity wrote:

    Quote:

    wayfarer wrote: I seriously reject the idea that an enlightened god will punish those who seek the truth.

    After being raised in a very intolerant TBM society I began to

    Adopt there views. When I reached my mid-late teens I began to have friends from many countries and many faiths.

    My views changed over time as I began to accept my friends weren’t lost or influenced by evil. I began to try to understand and learn all about them and accept the truths and adapt the good parts of thier culture to my own life. I began to realize we all had truths and things to contribute. I began journey to what people refer to as very “international”.

    In short, I have been transformed by my significant international experience and can never go back to the belief that punishes those you seek the truth. I have learned to accept what I have learned from each cultures own truth. When I tied to fight against it at first i was in internal conflict until I just learned to accept what I learned.

    I’m curious wayfarer. Do you have a lot of international cultureal experience?


    a little. well, maybe more than a little. I currently rotate my time on a weekly basis between USA, Europe, Asia Pacific, and Brazil, with a little of africa and middle-east thrown in. I am home about 25% of the time, hence the title ‘wayfarer’ means both my voyage along the way in spiritual terms, as well as being traveler through most countries. I just finished two years of having a home in India.

    Once you voyage through another country and get to know its people, it’s hard to think of them as the faceless enemy. Once you voyage through other religions and know their faith, it’s hard to say you have the ‘one true church on all the face of the earth’. While I do not find other religions to be my home or tribe, I have a great appreciation for other religions, while also seeing with ALL, a lot of baggage and man-made crap.

    One does not evaluate a religion like islam from the outside. One must go to mosque and pray, live through ramadan, understand why the arabic version of the qur’an has power. One does not understand hinduism by studying it, but rather, going to a shaivite temple and worshipping in faith and understanding. Hard to do when you think your church has a unique grasp on faith.

    I have gone the furthest in understanding daoism. I read and translate classical chinese daoist, huanglao, and confucian texts into english and find in the core writings a lot of ‘gospel’ principles unavailable to the Church. For example, I’m currently working through a work called the Wenzi, which has an amazing history. It teaches of how to listen with the spirit, that spiritual listening touches the core of us, forcing us to be absolutely humble and authentic with others, setting aside our personal agenda as we reach out and understand them. Do we teach this? do we preach this? How much of our preaching and teaching is focused on really helping people learn to support others? Sure, we get pressure to go do our home and visiting teaching. I accept that the idea of caring for others is absolutely important, and I think the church does much here. But if you at what people actuall do:

    – Home teaching is two men focused on delivering a message, seeing if the family is OK, and tending to helping them out. Great stuff. Do home teachers take the time to simply listen to the needs of their families? Is there any training for home teachers to know how to listen with an open mind and heart?

    – Compassionate service is focused on delivering meals to those in need. Often, when a family is having trouble, the relief society is organized to provide lasagne and green jello anytime something happens at a family. Great stuff, really. But real service might be better rendered by finding out what is really needed by that family — the part they don’t share with others. Are we really in tune if we just push out the service?

    I’m not saying that home and visiting teaching, and compassionate service aren’t some of the best aspects of the church. But we don’t teach or preach the fundamental principles of spiritual listening, because we don’t have the doctrine as to how to do this. We have one section, section 50, that alludes to spiritual listening. Do we teach it? Do we preach it?

    Well that’s just an example. We learn a great deal from other cultures. I could go on for hours about this. thanks for sharing and asking.

    July 19, 2012 at 7:20 pm #255845
    Anonymous
    Guest

    I am afraid there is a misunderstanding that has in part lead to this ongoing discussion. It started with this:

    Nephite wrote:

    wayfarer wrote:

    – I believe that the divine nature within us that we inherited from God the Father is god.

    – I do not believe in a personal god separate from humanity that directs the affairs of this world, church, etc.


    I’m confused :?. If god is “the divine nature within us that we inherited from God the Father,” yet there is no “personal god separate from humanity” from whom the god in each of us would have been inherited, then is there any god? Haha, I probably just misunderstand.


    I have thought “humanity” refers to we mortals inhabiting earth, homo sapiens that bleed and die, the condition of being human. So when I wrote God “is outside of and above humanity” I meant that He is not inside of us; he is a individual entity. He is above us as an exalted Man. So maybe we don’t disagree, as least not as much as we thought.

    I will respond in a spirit of respect and for the sake of understanding and enlighening conversation 🙂

    wayfarer wrote:

    please help me with something. which LDS version did you use on your mission? did you ask people if they believe that god is an exalted man who no longer is a man but was one on another planet in another universe and now lives on a planet called kolob, who, as a physical corporeal being can simultaneously be in any given place at once answering your prayers, who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, yet allowed the holocaust to kill millions of innocent men women and children and is willing to send aver a third of his children to and endless place of torture, who is unchangeable from everlasting to everlasting, yet was once a mortal man?


    I mostly just taught the basics, like what is on the church’s website in the “Gospel Topics” section. I did not actively teach that Heavenly Father was once like us – I recall discussing it when investigators specifically asked about it. If someone asked about Kolob, I would explain it’s the star near the planet on which God resides. He is omnipresent only in that his spirit’s influence can be everywhere – “Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—…” I do believe Heavenly Father is omniscient, knowing all there is to know. I don’t think the Holocaust takes away from His benevolence. When innocent people die, they move on to something better. I know that’s oversimplifying it, but I hope you get what I mean. We are going to disagree on this, and that’s okay – in my view, over a third of Heavenly Father’s children will have actively chosen to leave Him and thus leave the source of joy. I suppose I understand very little about how that will work out.

    Information about God the Father is here, Jesus Christ here, and the Holy Ghost here.

    wayfarer wrote:

    as long as you maintain that people “must have a testimony of the “LDS version” of the Godhead, etc., to get a temple recommend”, then you are forcing a rigidity that is above the standard, and is unhealthy fo all those who are struggling to stayLDS as they learn of the myriad, conflicting positions LDS prophets have speculated about the nature of god.

    what is your point in saying we must fully believe the so called standard definition in order to be a full participant in the church including a TR?

    It would have been better for me to write “I also maintain that one should have a testimony of the “LDS version” of the Godhead, etc., to get a temple recommend.” I don’t see it as too rigid and I believe the official view is simple and consistent and is essentially what I linked from the church’s site above. To explain my purpose of saying one should believe that way, I will post in the “TR Question Survey – Summary” thread.

    wayfarer wrote:

    Nephite wrote:

    I disagree with your statement that if the couplet is true, “then there is no god outside of humanity.” If Heavenly Father was once a man, I believe it was in another universe and He is the God of this universe.


    i am curious if you have scriptural or official doctrine support your opinion (1) that God originated in another universe, and (2) that god is no longer a man. if this is your opinion only, and is not to be found in the official doctrine of the church, then how is it that you disparage my opinion, which is entirely derived from scripture, as being unacceptable for a temple recommend interview?


    I only gave my opinion – I wrote “I believe it was in another universe….” I didn’t think I was disparaging your opinion. I am sorry if you saw it that way. I do, however, feel berated on this thread. I am sincerely trying to understand your view of god. I understand that you ultimately see it as “unknowable.” What I have read from you is:

    From the “TR Question Survey – Question 1a: God” thread:

    -“What I do believe is that there IS a power out there, greater than ourselves, to which we can pray and turn over our problems to.”

    -“So who is God to me? I have felt a presence when praying or meditating many times in my life. I have felt at times that someone is so connected with the power of the universe that their words are absolutely scripture to me. I have seen that selfless service is to be a god to those served. I have seen judgment done in righteousness and mercy that demonstrate the power of god. I have observed the heavens, the work of creation, and all of it testifies to me of ‘god’, not the illogical and mythical one of the scripture, but rather, the amazing transcendence of the power of the universe and the idea that an enlightened soul can be one with that power in a moment.”

    -“To say ‘heavenly father’ is symbolic to me that there is someone I can pray to that will listen. It probably starts with my non-conscious self, but who is to say that that isn’t ‘god’ to me? Whether there is a separate being called “God the Father” out there, I may not know for sure, but I know that the interface to that being is right here inside of me.”

    From this thread:

    -“I believe that the divine nature within us that we inherited from God the Father is god.”

    From your blog:

    -“In my understanding, god is not ‘out there’, separate, some puppet master or ideal that orchestrates what is happening here, to whom we pray for favors. God is “I am” – “in there”:being itself as reflected inside of me: the Atman. Not the logical mind, not the passion, neti, neti. “

    By using only snippets of your writings, I certainly don’t mean to change the meaning or context of anything and I hope you will correct any misunderstandings I might have. I am left wondering if you believe in an actually personage of any kind. I don’t mean that disrespectfully at all.

    wayfarer wrote:

    Nephite wrote:

    I’m not sure what you mean by “God of the creeds” so I can’t answer that part of your question.


    the creeds developed a position that god was without body, parts, or passions, that god was “uncreated” and has never been corporeal. Missionaries In my time were required to know this, maybe in your mission experience you didn’t teach that the creeds were wrong specifically in the definition of god versus lds teaching that god is an exalted man. i must be confused, because as part of the gospel essentials class I taught as Ward Mission Leader three years ago, it is taught as an integral part of the lesson of the first vision and in the plan of salvation lesson.


    “The creeds” was not very specific as there are thousands of them. Thanks for explaining what you were referring to. Yeah, I was aware of all that while on my mission.

    EDIT: I removed the material from the church website about the Godhead because we’ve all seen it anyway. I kept the links here.

    July 19, 2012 at 11:08 pm #255846
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Welcome Wayfarer – I think you’ll like it here. :thumbup:

    July 20, 2012 at 12:11 am #255847
    Anonymous
    Guest

    As a third party, perhaps it might be helpful for me to throw out my own belief as a bridge or “missing link” between Way and Nephite.

    I believe in something akin to the Trinity. This general description gives me a rough framework to conceptualize God but is also flexible enough to allow my concept of God to change. In other words, it is flexible enough for God to be whatever I need him to be. He can dwell in my heart (as God the Spirit) if that’s what I need him to be. He can be my literal father. He can be my Savior and Redeemer. He can know all of me and love all of me and give me permission to move a little closer to His view of myself.

    I do not think that this conception in any way accurate. I expect to get to the other side and say, “Whoa! I was way off base!”

    At the same time this conception of God serves two purposes –

    1) I believe that God works within my conception to communicate with me and teach me from time to time.

    2) I believe that my conception of God affords me certain comforts and “peace” that I might otherwise have difficulty finding in this troubled and confusing life.

    I believe that there are similarities and differences in our conceptions of God – but the functions of our conceptions are remarkably similar.

  • Author
    Posts
    • Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 34 total)
    1 2 3
    • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.