- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
shoshin wrote:
Even something as silly as this: when I lived in Virginia many years ago some people believed Mormons literally had horns. I kid not.
I actually did encounter a couple people as a missionary who had been taught that and were quite literally surprised that we didn’t have horns. One of them said he was told we cut them off when we are missionaries. I think the more insidious lies though are those that have elements of truth – the God Makers kind of stuff. There are correct things in there that many Mormons really do believe, and much of what is depicted as happening in the temple really does (or did) happen. But on top of that there is lots of stuff Mormons don’t believe and are just plain false.
There are many situations. That’s why it’s important at times to bit trust out senses and use tools if measurement and procedures that can measure and analyze things without bias. Developing methods and tools that prove accurate and repeatable instead if relying on senses alone. Ultimately were we fail is the the same standees we accuse others of failing.
To ditch the senses and rely on the Holy Ghost which is just a part of the senses.
It’s the same false argument we make about freedom of religion.
Which is the freedom of speech is a threat to well speech.
Your senses are a threat to well, your senses.
The biggest threat to truth is bias in a direction without proper testing and 3rd party over watching. To have people from the inside out and the outside in and all different angles contribute.
As we value others, others will value us. It’s not a guarantee, nothing is. But we are mistaking to take rights that we would not give others or would expect others to take for themselves. There has never been harmony in that approach in all of humanity. This is the paradox born. Exclusive authority must by its own definition exclude.
Excluding by definition can’t respect. Can’t be equal.
Thus is the harmony forever broken so long as exclusive exist. Harmony and exclusive cannot exist together.
Quote:Joseph Smith in the early days of the church had lots of lies told about him. It got people angry about nothing,
They also said a lot of accurate things that got people angry about something.
We have to be as balanced and accurate as we can when we talk about these things.
shoshin wrote:I have often wondered myself why the physical ordinances are necessary. For example, with baptism, why is it necessary to be immersed in the water and have a priesthood holder speak the prayer? Why can’t we just say, “I commit to follow the gospel and I will join the church now?”
Does the ordinance of baptism accomplish something “magical” that wouldn’t have otherwise have happened? Or is it just symbolic? Or is it good to do something tangible so I and others know for sure that we are now members of the church and agree to follow God?
I believe that the ordinance helps us to remember the commitment we made. I can remember my baptism, I remember what day of the year it was; it was an event. For starters I wasn’t 8 years old when I was baptized, so that helps immensely.
On the other hand, if one day I just said I commit to the gospel I promise you that I’d forget the specific day. It wouldn’t stand out as a memorable moment in my life, or if it did I would have to find ways to make it more memorable, like throwing a party where I got dunked in water or something.
nibbler wrote:shoshin wrote:I have often wondered myself why the physical ordinances are necessary. For example, with baptism, why is it necessary to be immersed in the water and have a priesthood holder speak the prayer? Why can’t we just say, “I commit to follow the gospel and I will join the church now?”
Does the ordinance of baptism accomplish something “magical” that wouldn’t have otherwise have happened? Or is it just symbolic? Or is it good to do something tangible so I and others know for sure that we are now members of the church and agree to follow God?
I believe that the ordinance helps us to remember the commitment we made. I can remember my baptism, I remember what day of the year it was; it was an event. For starters I wasn’t 8 years old when I was baptized, so that helps immensely.
On the other hand, if one day I just said I commit to the gospel I promise you that I’d forget the specific day. It wouldn’t stand out as a memorable moment in my life, or if it did I would have to find ways to make it more memorable, like throwing a party where I got dunked in water or something.
Ya, I had often wondered what would have happened if I had my baptism later. As it stands I remember nothing or have any feelings connected to it. But then again I think it was like most baptism whet your parents get in you to get baptized and you commit for compliance to please them. But that wouldn’t explain why I have no spec sip feelings for the others ordinances so hmm. Maybe it’s because rituals do nothing for me? I loved my wedding, but that was because I was with my wife, I don’t actually remember anything said in that ceremony though. I imagine it’s like my wedding ring, it means something to my wife so I wear it, but it doesn’t help me to do anything. With or without it I am the sane person and remember my commitment to my wife, no object or ceremony can change that I think. But I have to wonder if for other people it does? Curious.
I think the other ordinances, like the temple ordinances, are reaffirmations. Say you got baptized at 8 and remember nothing, and let’s face it, an 8 year old still doesn’t have that much accountability. In that light receiving your endowments can be another way to recommit, this time at a later age with an even better sense of accountability.
That might be the principle, in practice I’ve frequently seen ordinances used as things to facilitate getting people to set and meet goals. Work toward baptism, work toward a patriarchal blessing, work toward receiving your endowment, work toward a temple sealing. The hope is that once you’ve done all that you’ve become a self starter, someone that no longer needs an ordinance on the horizon for motivation. Some might look at that and see it as a form of control but I believe it’s done with the best of intentions.
One way that helps me deal with the discontinuities between what the Church teaches and what I experience is a recognition of stewardship differences. The Q15 have an overwhelming responsibility to bring the message of Christ, with its accompanying priesthood authority ordinances, and teachings. The trends in society scare me to death: wars and rumors of wars, pop culture making what feels good the only relevant criteria of right and wrong, greed, avarice and thirst for power being the order of the day for politicians and tycoons, the internet making anyone with a computer an “authority” on any subject he chooses.
Loving God and loving your fellow man is definitely out of favor, so If I were a GA, I could see me tempted to teach a fairly dogmatic theology, just as they are doing, as a way to reach the most people.
But when I look at my stewardship, my priorities are for my family and myself. My DW and I live a pretty conservative morality/theology. We’ve been baptised, married in the temple, filled many church callings, hold temple recommends, and I’m a HP. If we find that life brings us choices that are a bit unorthodox, we make our own decisions. My wife was recently advised by her doctor to drink coffee for her heart. I am skipping an increasing number of Priesthood and Sunday School lessons because I refuse to compound ignorance.
I have no right to tell the brethren how to fulfill their stewardship, and I believe they have no right to tell me how to fulfil my family stewardships
You make a good point Dash. I would submit, however, that the top leadership, especially the First Presidency, mostly teaches “love they neighbor.” In fact, that’s almost all Pres. Monson ever talks about. I find it hard to argue with a prophet teaching that basic principle of the gospel.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.