- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
GBSmith wrote:mackay11 wrote:
I have no idea why someone would choose a life in the gutter. In order for us to fulfil the instruction to house the homeless, visit the sick and feed the hungry as Matt 25 teaches us to, as a qualification for eternal life (or perhaps the only qualification) there has to be at least some who are starving and homeless.
The idea that they might have selected this option in a former life doesn’t absolve me for one minute of trying ease the pain of that experience in this one.
Sorry but that’s way more than a stretch. If this were the old mormon matters I’d feel some license to say what I really feel about your idea. In Bart Ehrman’s book “God’s Problem” he explores the idea of evil and suffering and explains what he totally lost his faith over the whole business. I’m beginning to appreciate what he meant.
Fair enough. I’ve no issues with people having different perspectives.
Given I’ve reached the conclusion that the prophets and therefore scriptures/publications are sometimes in error I’ve also reminded myself that I must be too. As such I have no insistence on being right, only on seeking perspectives that ‘fit’ or ‘work’ for me.
Quote:Given I’ve reached the conclusion that the prophets and therefore scriptures/publications are sometimes in error I’ve also reminded myself that I must be too. As such I have no insistence on being right, only on seeking perspectives that ‘fit’ or ‘work’ for me.
:thumbup: Fwiw, I see a huge difference between the inevitability of poverty and suffering in the natural world and the idea that people chose a life of pain and suffering. I accept the first one but not the second one – and I believe one of our main responsibilities of mortality is to accept the responsibility to eliminate poverty and suffering to the best of our ability – to stop blaming God and be the gods of this earth in that regard. If anyone is interested, I wrote the following post on my personal blog last month:
“
Why Mortal Suffering?: or, We Are Meant to Be the Gods of This Earth” ( http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2013/07/why-mortal-suffering-or-we-are-meant-to.html mackay11 wrote:
Given I’ve reached the conclusion that the prophets and therefore scriptures/publications are sometimes in error I’ve also reminded myself that I must be too. As such I have no insistence on being right, only on seeking perspectives that ‘fit’ or ‘work’ for me.I’m going to save this somewhere.
mackay11 wrote:I have no idea why someone would choose a life in the gutter. In order for us to fulfil the instruction to house the homeless, visit the sick and feed the hungry as Matt 25 teaches us to, as a qualification for eternal life (or perhaps the only qualification) there has to be at least some who are starving and homeless.
The idea that they might have selected this option in a former life doesn’t absolve me for one minute of trying ease the pain of that experience in this one.
This is very similar to what was reported in “Embraced by the Light” a book about a NDE by an LDS woman.
We had some discussion found here:
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2805&hilit=embraced+by+the+light Her book was defended against LDS critics by Bro. Skousen here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15606349/Commentary-on-Embraced-by-the-Light-Betty-J-Eadie The following excerpts were taken from Bro Skousen’s defense:
Quote:We select the illnesses we suffer.Personally, I don’t think the Church has an official positionon this. We do seem to acknowledge the possibility that we had much to do with planning and accepting our lot in life, but I don’t think the Church has accepted an official doctrine one wayor the other. It seems reasonable that, with everything else we believe about free agency, itmight certainly be possible. Through choosing to die (e.g., stepping in front of a drunk driver) we may save that person from committing additional sins in the future.Well, she admits that the idea sounds terrible to us on earth. Joseph Smith wrote an interesting declaration about the planning thatwent into the entire earth experience. “The great Jehovah contemplated the whole of the events connected with the earth, pertaining to the plan of salvation, before it rolled into existence, or ever the morning stars sang together for joy, the past, the present and the future
WERE AND ARE WITH HIM, one eternal ‘now.’… He knew the plan of salvation and pointed it out. He was acquainted with the situations of all nations and with their destiny. He ordered all things according to the council of His own will …” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 220) So from that point of view, perhaps she is right when she observed, “There are far fewer accidents here than we imagine, especially in things that affect us eternally. The hand of God, and the path we chose before we came here, guide many of our decisions and even many of the seemingly random experiences we have.” (Embraced by the Light, p. 68) Granted, she is speculating, but those are thoughts of loving sacrifice and could make a lot of sense to thoughtful Latter-day Saints.
Spirits of great intelligence may choose to enter the body of those who are mentally handicapped.We know so little about why babies do not remain on the earth or why others are mental handicapped. If Christ contemplated the whole of events, it may well be that those of us who lived to be adults and have keen minds may have needed these trials more than others, but who knows? The Church certainly seems to have no official position on it that I know of.
A valiant spirit chose to sacrifice his mortal experience and be an alcoholic in order to sit on the street and motivate a person he had bonded to in the pre-mortal existence.Again, an interesting thought having to do with how we joined with Jehovah about our taking part on the earth, but why not? Again, the Church has not tried to deal with these mysteries and suggests that we do not argue about them. All Eadie is doing is reporting her experience.
Bridget Night has also taken comfort in this understanding:
bridget_night wrote:I have a 30 year old son who is gay who went from such a strong faith in God and the church to becoming an atheist and depressed for years over this issue. God gave me a powerful experience showing me that I should see my son as in the story of the blind man in the Bible. It was thought it was a sin and that either the parents or the blind man had sinned and we know Christ said it was no ones fault or a sin but he was born blind for the glory of God. Should a blind man, not be allowed to marry, have sex, or affection? If God created a man blind or gay, how can it be wrong. Now, I just want my son to believe in God again and that he created him the way he is and for a purpose.
An additional source that might support Bridget’s experience is found in Matt. 19:12“For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb:and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” For me and the “Problem of Evil,” I choose to sacrifice God’s omni-ness and introduce random chance into the equation to help me make sense of it all. But I am open to seeing both advantages and disadvantages of the various perspectives inside and outside of Mormonism. I find that many Mormon teachings tend to lend themselves towards an interventionist God – so that might be an easier path for those seeking to “StayLDS.” I know in my heart of hearts that I have adopted my perspective/lens because of its usefulness to me. I shouldn’t be surprised to find that my lens doesn’t work the same way for another…it may even distort their vision in destructive ways and give them vertigo.
:sick: After reading this thread, I have a couple of thoughts to share. They are not responses to any particular poster as I can’t recall who wrote what after 7 pages but here goes: On why the ideal version of the church does not exist (yet):The church that exists is the church we create. It is a mirror of us. And we interpret God and his words from our vantage point, however high or low that is. This is true for the president of the church as well as for the new deacon. People in positions of leadership have the ability to shape the church within their sphere of influence but those changes are only as lasting as the membership and subsequent leaders allow them to be. Consider what Christ said to those who questioned the Mosaic law of divorce. He said essentially, ‘You got that lesser law because you were stiff-necked.’ Same principle. We get what we are ready to receive.
When I first told my bishop that I was a universalist and that God was, too (yep – I’m that confident), he said “What will keep people coming to church if they think they are going to be saved regardless of whether they attend or live the principles of the gospel?” I responded with a question, “If members attend church and keep the commandments believing that doing so earns them a spot in the celestial kingdom, and they are either acting out of fear of unpleasant consequences or hopes for a merited reward, are they experiencing a true change of heart and becoming Christlike?”
He said, “I guess not.”
I said, “Why does it matter then if they are far from Christ at home or far from Christ in the pews?”
My experience is that we perpetuate the idea that God is the kind of father who will give His son a stone or a serpent (see Christ’s response to this approach in Matthew 7:9-11) because far too many of us know God far too little and because we are essentially worshiping an unknown God who we fear can’t be nearly as good as He says He is.
If my bishop had experienced the love of God as powerfully as Nephi, for example, he would have known that truly converted people don’t need carrots or sticks. They see the wisdom of virtuous living and of communion because they have experienced those things in the presence of God. Their very natures are changed. And it takes true conversion. Something I believe will eventually happen to us all.
Nephi saw Christ and his final written words included the hope that God would save all men. (2 Ne. 33:12) Most of us don’t see Christ in this life and so we spend our lives trying to describe a vista we have never seen, a delicacy we have never tasted, a love with which we have never been consumed or ravished.
On whether we choose our adversities:When I was 15, one of my best friends was consistently abused by her step-father. She was the lone active member in her family (step-dad wasn’t a member at all) and she attended church every Sunday. She eventually began dating a young soldier, got pregnant, married him and moved away after dropping out of high school. I had profound spiritual experiences with this friend as we both struggled through some difficult adolescent years. At one point, I demanded that God show me the sense in having this beautiful girl suffer at her step-father’s brutality. Instead, I saw a vision of her, even more lovely, angelic, volunteering to endure her particular lot in life. What I saw lines up with what has been described in
Embraced by the Light, I suppose, although I had certainly not read that book or even heard about it at that time. Of course, that experience doesn’t explain all the misery and suffering in the world but it did and still does convince me that at least in some instances we face trials for reasons we cannot now understand. On the fact that Mormonism,if understood,is universalism : Amen.
mercyngrace wrote:After reading this thread, I have a couple of thoughts to share. They are not responses to any particular poster as I can’t recall who wrote what after 7 pages but here goes:
On why the ideal version of the church does not exist (yet):The church that exists is the church we create. It is a mirror of us. And we interpret God and his words from our vantage point, however high or low that is. This is true for the president of the church as well as for the new deacon. People in positions of leadership have the ability to shape the church within their sphere of influence but those changes are only as lasting as the membership and subsequent leaders allow them to be. Consider what Christ said to those who questioned the Mosaic law of divorce. He said essentially, ‘You got that lesser law because you were stiff-necked.’ Same principle. We get what we are ready to receive.
When I first told my bishop that I was a universalist and that God was, too (yep – I’m that confident), he said “What will keep people coming to church if they think they are going to be saved regardless of whether they attend or live the principles of the gospel?” I responded with a question, “If members attend church and keep the commandments believing that doing so earns them a spot in the celestial kingdom, and they are either acting out of fear of unpleasant consequences or hopes for a merited reward, are they experiencing a true change of heart and becoming Christlike?”
He said, “I guess not.”
I said, “Why does it matter then if they are far from Christ at home or far from Christ in the pews?”
My experience is that we perpetuate the idea that God is the kind of father who will give His son a stone or a serpent (see Christ’s response to this approach in Matthew 7:9-11) because far too many of us know God far too little and because we are essentially worshiping an unknown God who we fear can’t be nearly as good as He says He is.
If my bishop had experienced the love of God as powerfully as Nephi, for example, he would have known that truly converted people don’t need carrots or sticks. They see the wisdom of virtuous living and of communion because they have experienced those things in the presence of God. Their very natures are changed. And it takes true conversion. Something I believe will eventually happen to us all.
Nephi saw Christ and his final written words included the hope that God would save all men. (2 Ne. 33:12) Most of us don’t see Christ in this life and so we spend our lives trying to describe a vista we have never seen, a delicacy we have never tasted, a love with which we have never been consumed or ravished.
On whether we choose our adversities:When I was 15, one of my best friends was consistently abused by her step-father. She was the lone active member in her family (step-dad wasn’t a member at all) and she attended church every Sunday. She eventually began dating a young soldier, got pregnant, married him and moved away after dropping out of high school. I had profound spiritual experiences with this friend as we both struggled through some difficult adolescent years. At one point, I demanded that God show me the sense in having this beautiful girl suffer at her step-father’s brutality. Instead, I saw a vision of her, even more lovely, angelic, volunteering to endure her particular lot in life. What I saw lines up with what has been described in
Embraced by the Light, I suppose, although I had certainly not read that book or even heard about it at that time. Of course, that experience doesn’t explain all the misery and suffering in the world but it did and still does convince me that at least in some instances we face trials for reasons we cannot now understand. On the fact that Mormonism,if understood,is universalism : Amen.
Excellent post mercyngrace! Good to see you back and hear your thoughts.
Mercyngrace, that’s awesome. So, question. What are the 14 F’s people keep talking about?
Quote:So, question. What are the 14 F’s people keep talking about?
The 14 Fundamentals – something that should be burned, buried and forgotten. In other words, don’t ask.
😈 Old-Timer wrote:Quote:So, question. What are the 14 F’s people keep talking about?
The 14 Fundamentals – something that should be burned, buried and forgotten. In other words, don’t ask.
😈 The 14 Fs, represents the worst of the worst when it comes to religion. Unfortunately they are alive and well in the LDS Church since October 2010 GC.
A research here will pull up several threads.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:So, question. What are the 14 F’s people keep talking about?
The 14 Fundamentals – something that should be burned, buried and forgotten. In other words, don’t ask.
😈
Best not to ask because someone here has a very visceral reaction to the 14F…cwald wrote:The 14 Fs, represents the worst of the worst when it comes to religion. Unfortunately they are alive and well in the LDS Church since October 2010 GC.
A research here will pull up several threads.
and !voila!
i love you cwald, but i agree with Ray…in one ear and out the other.. or “screw them if they can’t take a joke”…
i love, LOVE mercyngrace’s response above!!!
mercyngrace, thanks for the fantastic post. You’ve epitomised why I love this community so much. Oh. I just found them. Yeah, some of them I take great issue with. And others are great in theory but in practice? Not so great. . . Ruthiechan wrote:Oh. I just found them. Yeah, some of them I take great issue with. And others are great in theory but in practice? Not so great. . .
I said this in another post, but I’m not even sure I’m a 1 F kind of guy.
I think Elder Benson envied Elder Maxwell and was looking for a way to include some alliteration in his talk. 4 Fundamentals didn’t take his entire time allocation, so he added 10 more to get to 14 Fundamentals. Afterward, I think he realized he’d stretched the point beyond recognition, so he never tried something like that again. Yeah, that’s what I think. Yeah, that’s it. Yeah. yeah. yea . . . ye . . . y . . .
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.