- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
A member with a prominent stake calling spoke in our Stake Conference yesterday. He is a very good man with a sincere, loving heart. He is extremely accomplished in the field of higher education – about as accomplished as it is possible to be. He made an important point about being willing to go and do whatever is needed to serve God and others, even if it doesn’t happen how you have planned your life to go – but he did so in an autobiographical way that highlighted his academic and professional accomplishments. It wasn’t prideful or Rameumptum-esque, but it still was a bit merit-badge-Ish. He truly is a humble man, but the talk absolutely could have come across as a bit of a humble brag. Sometimes, the merit badge mentality is obvious; sometimes, it simply is a function of people having real lives with natural emotions and concerns and interests.
Sometimes, it isn’t hard to tell the difference. In those cases, I try to be charitable and assume the best.
DarkJedi wrote:
SamBee wrote:How about the “weird but useful guy at the back” badge. I hold a respectable calling, but certain members still give me a wide berth.
I don’t know that I’m all that weird, but others would probably disagree. I do likewise hold a respectable calling and there are some who likewise give me wide berth.
We’ve a few in that category. One who has a speech impediment, but until his health got worse he kept the building clean. He was the unsung hero of our ward – I’ve always tried to speak up for the work he did because few did. We’ve another guy, also with a stammer, who is the one of the kindest in the ward and has helped me an incredible amount. There is a woman with learning difficulties, welcomes everyone in and makes folk feel genuinely welcome – she too will look after you if you get in a bad way. None of these people are smartly dressed, slick or RMs, but each of them has made my ward a better place to be.
In each case I’ve tried to help them too. None of them have held high leadership positions, but without such people it wouldn’t happen.
The LDS church believes in being judged according to our works. The following is found in the preface to D&C 76: Quote:It appeared self-evident from what truths were left, that if God rewarded every one according to the deeds done in the body the term ‘Heaven,’ as intended for the Saints’ eternal home, must include more kingdoms than one.
I am not saying that there are not advantages to the 3 kingdom concept over the heaven of bliss/hell of eternal torment model. I am just pointing out that our doctrine of the afterlife was overhauled to make it a better fit for the meritocracy mindset.
A former Staylds participant, Mercyngrace, had a perspective on the gospel that seemed to reconcile the 3 degrees of glory with the grace of God. Essentially, instead of looking at it as being graded for performance it can be viewed more like a guided tour. The terrestrial and telestial kingdoms will have no permanent inhabitants because they are place markers or waypoints for those whose ultimate destination is the celestial kingdom.
All God’s children are saved/exalted just as fast as they are prepared and ready (except for the Son’s of Perdition)
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2288&hilit=wins&start=20 At the time Mercyngrace explained her perspective it was truly ground breaking for me. I hope that some others also find it helpful.
Roy wrote:
A former Staylds participant, Mercyngrace, had a perspective on the gospel that seemed to reconcile the 3 degrees of glory with the grace of God. Essentially, instead of looking at it as being graded for performance it can be viewed more like a guided tour. The terrestrial and telestial kingdoms will have no permanent inhabitants because they are place markers or waypoints for those whose ultimate destination is the celestial kingdom.
When I first read this I thought, “That can’t be right.” I always heard it as doctrine you can’t progress from one to another… but… it looks like it was never spell out in the doctrine. As with most fringe teachings, there are prophets and authorities pointing to both sides (progression through kingdoms vs being confined to a kingdom). It still makes me very confused, as to the purpose of this life, and as well as lack of clear doctrine from those who claim to be prophets.
I have no clue what’s actually true, but it feels like much more charitable doctrine. Thanks for sharing, Roy.
I am there with you Dande. I do not claim to know what is more true about the afterlife. It was a strange realization for me that in absence of dependable sources about the afterlife, I have the option to determine my own belief to some extent based upon what feels best and what speaks to my heart (mind and heart leading to personal revelation :thumbup: ).I am certainly impressed by the breadth and scope of what is possible inside the LDS framework. All of the pieces are there to be arranged in a myriad of fascinating and beautiful ways.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.