I need help.

[Anonymous]

taletotell wrote:

I am not saying they were bad. I am not a pacifist either, but Christ like love demands a higher law.

Thanks for clarifying your point. “Tragedy” seemed like a harsh word for youth willing to lay down their lives for family, but I see your point on the higher law, but perhaps it is a tragedy anyone would have to endure such suffering at the hands of enemies.

I believe that even with Charity, there are times we need to stand up for our rights and families and the good of all (including enemies). Perhaps more as Ghandi did it, and sat and fasted for it, instead of fighting. These choices are not easy in life.

Good responses!

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

I believe that even with Charity, there are times we need to stand up for our rights and families and the good of all (including enemies). Perhaps more as Ghandi did it, and sat and fasted for it, instead of fighting. These choices are not easy in life.

I think you are probably right. It is like how Ammon went and offered his service to the enemy, but even he killed a lot of bandits in the process. Simply bowing to the lamanites might have not really been an option.

I do see cases where it worked. Alma the elder and his followers saw great miracles when they bowed to the enemy, while the previous group tried to fight their way out again and again, and eventually tricked their way out to escape to zarahemla.

The whole issue is whether, if the nephites had submitted to the mercy of the lamanites would it have lead to everyone becoming peaceful and coming to God? For Nephi angels saved him sometimes, but Laman and Lemuel did not come around, and in more recent history the slaves in the confederate south being submissive did not bring them peace and happiness, nor did it convert the southern people to true charity.

This is all an example of how, though I am not convinced the BoM is true, I believe it contains great truths.

[Anonymous]

taletotell wrote:

…though I am not convinced the BoM is true, I believe it contains great truths.

Amen!

[Anonymous]

Quote:

This means 1/3 were damned in the beginning

Fwiw, I don’t take the math literally, especially from a modern perspective. If you are interested, read the following from my personal blog:

“How Many of God’s Children Followed Lucifer?” (http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2014/08/how-many-of-gods-children-followed.html)

“Did 1/3 of God’s Children Reject His Plan? Implications for Eternity” (http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2015/01/did-13-of-gods-children-reject-his-plan.html)

[Anonymous]

Interesting

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

For me, both when I was a fully believing and faithful member of the Church, and now that I am an Atheist, I don’t see the Church as inserted between God and me. I have always seen myself as an agent unto myself, having a private relationship with God, and a member of a community where we are all trying to do the same thing within a framework. In other words, I see myself as the Subject in the Church and in rituals, rather than the Object. I think that has been a driving factor in my ability to StayLDS in spite of significant differences between the Church and me.

See, that is something that I never really understood and has been one of the reasons that this has been so difficult for me in transitioning my paradigms.

Lots of interesting insights here and I like the direction these conversations are headed. Don’t stop your tangents because they’re valuable and free flowing conversation is where the biggest realizations occur.

[Anonymous]

metalrain wrote:

On Own Now wrote:

taletotell wrote:

For me, both when I was a fully believing and faithful member of the Church, and now that I am an Atheist, I don’t see the Church as inserted between God and me. I have always seen myself as an agent unto myself, having a private relationship with God, and a member of a community where we are all trying to do the same thing within a framework. In other words, I see myself as the Subject in the Church and in rituals, rather than the Object. I think that has been a driving factor in my ability to StayLDS in spite of significant differences between the Church and me.

See, that is something that I never really understood and has been one of the reasons that this has been so difficult for me in transitioning my paradigms.

Lots of interesting insights here and I like the direction these conversations are headed. Don’t stop your tangents because they’re valuable and free flowing conversation is where the biggest realizations occur.

It’s back to separating the gospel and the church again. In the gospel there is no restriction on direct interaction with God, and in truth there isn’t in the church, either. The problem in the church is the “follow the prophet” mantra which can lead us away from that direct interaction.

From a personal point of view it helps that I believe in a deist-like God and don’t expect that He will directly interact. That is something I learned outside church, though, and is not an orthodox view. That’s what the “middle way” or “own way” is all about – realizing what you believe for you and then making the church yours as opposed to you belonging to the church.

[Anonymous]

I agree. It’s hard to shift that mentality sometimes, but I feel more free than before.

What are everyones thoughts on the temple? I personally have been thinking about that often. I have always enjoyed initiatories and sealings, but the first time I did the endowment it freaked me out and I don’t know if I’ve been 100% comfortable with it ever since- knowing a little bit about the masonic stuff has also lead me to wonder and doubt. But I’d like to hear some other peoples viewpoints and thoughts about it?

[Anonymous]

I find it odd and I don’t get a confirmation from it. I have figured out some of the symbolism I think but it hasn’t helped. Too much of it has little to do with what I’d call Godliness and too much to do with being in a club. I think the ritual is designed to tie us closer to the church, and that doesn’t preclude it being divinely revealed, but neither does it support it. Plus the changes over the years make it seem like a work in progress, which doesn’t with the revelation theory.

[Anonymous]

taletotell wrote:

I have figured out some of the symbolism I think but it hasn’t helped.

Here’s what helped me figure out the symbolism of the temple: the symbols in the temple aren’t the temple’s symbols, they’re my symbols. The meaning I derive from the temple doesn’t reveal things about the temple, it reveals things about myself.

Here’s where I’ll probably step on some toes but I got to the point where I was weary of hearing cryptic stories from people claiming to be in the know. As if the temple were this esoteric thing and if I were to only receive some special revelation that all would be unfolded… but for whatever reason that special knowledge can’t be related to other people in a simple explanation of some of the symbolism. Conclusions were varied:

1) People don’t know what they’re talking about and want to elevate themselves over others by claiming special knowledge.

2) The standard discussion killer, anything temple is too sacred to discuss. :shh:

3) Symbolism is highly individual and the symbols one derives from something can’t transfer over to someone else.

I’m sure there are other conclusions. Those are just a few.

Sometimes I view the temple as a training ground where we expect there to be lots of symbolism so we strain and push our spiritual selves to find them. The whole experience becomes a form of spiritual exercise where the activity of symbol searching and the repetition helps us become stronger and stronger in finding some sort of meaning. This strength we obtain from practicing in the temple can be used to do some heavy lifting outside the temple. All that straining to find meaning (where perhaps there was none :angel: ) makes it easier for us to find symbolism and meaning in every aspect of our daily lives.

If that’s the point of the temple the details of the rituals become irrelevant. The important thing is that we hold the ritual sacred enough to push ourselves to find or create meaning for ourselves.

How’s that for some new age hokum?

taletotell wrote:

Plus the changes over the years make it seem like a work in progress, which doesn’t with the revelation theory.

Or does it support the revelation theory? Bear with me… I think “work in progress” is roughly equivalent to “continued revelation” and a religion that doesn’t have continued revelation is a dead religion. To put it another way, we haven’t attained perfection yet so we need additional revelation to course correct.

I think most of us have been exposed to lessons that teach a completely perfect restoration of all things but the lord works through imperfect vessels. No chance we got it perfect right out of the gate, and besides JS and company were borrowing heavily on the people that came before them. Now we build on those same people plus JS and company.

As Uchtdorf would say, “…the Restoration is an ongoing process; we are living in it right now.”

[Anonymous]

I always understood continuing revelation to apply to adapting to new changes in the world and repairing traditions and doctrines gotten imperfectly. The specificity of the temple ceremonies suggests it was a tutored and practiced thing. Otherwise I can’t imagine how it was revealed. Did JS just do what felt right? Did he just get told to take it from the masons and adapt it according to promptings? Either of those works with a continuing revelation model, but if his revelations were as precise and perfect as he often claimed then that does not fit.

[Anonymous]

What many people believe about the temple and what Joseph taught about (and what it actually has been and now is) are very different things.

That’s important to understand.

[Anonymous]

Can you share some of that Ray?

[Anonymous]

metalrain wrote:

What are everyones thoughts on the temple? I personally have been thinking about that often. I have always enjoyed initiatories and sealings, but the first time I did the endowment it freaked me out and I don’t know if I’ve been 100% comfortable with it ever since- knowing a little bit about the masonic stuff has also lead me to wonder and doubt. But I’d like to hear some other peoples viewpoints and thoughts about it?

Yeah, I’ve never gotten anything from the temple either. Even when I was in college, and I would go to the temple three or four times in a week. For 15 years I tried to get some kind of spiritual experience with the temple, until I finally started to wonder if there was anything to it. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a beautiful and peaceful place, and it’s a great refuge from the problems of the outside world. But, I don’t believe that it has anything to do with our salvation.

[Anonymous]

metalrain wrote:

What are everyones thoughts on the temple?

I think there is a part of me that thinks through the temple stuff I know about. History, Joseph Smith, temple changes, ordinance work, etc.

And then, I think there is a part of me that focuses on the experience of the temple. The experience brings peace to me, I feel close to God, I have hope for good things. All that is good. All the symbolism is meaningful.

I don’t dismiss either of these two parts of me. I keep them both sacred to me. Some days I’m in more of one mood than another, but I benefit from both in making it a personal worship service for me.

I can’t deny the experiences I’ve had in the temple. Part of me thinks I could have the same experiences up in the mountains walking in nature and talking with God.

I want to embrace all goodness. I find some in the temple. Now being divorced, there are times the temple isn’t the best place for me to find peace. Other times, it is.

[Author]

Posts