- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
An open canon and continuing revelation is right as well I think. The Book of Mormon, regardless of its origins, has some very good spiritual teachings in it.
SamBee wrote:An open canon and continuing revelation is right as well I think.
The Book of Mormon, regardless of its origins, has some very good spiritual teachings in it.
You and I are agreeing quite a bit here SamBee. The whole idea of being open to the possibility that there is more scripture than what’s contained in the Bible is right and a historical fact. That’s another one of those things that made sense when I discovered the church – why would revelation have just ceased 2000 years ago? I get the teachings about the great apostasy and restoration and all (although I do question whether the gospel was actually not on the earth), but I don’t believe all God ever had to say to us is in the Bible and not even in all that the church calls scripture.
mackay11 wrote:Hi Shawn, great to have you back with us.
…
So despite strongly disagreeing with some Christians on salvation and hell, I recognise that it might be that belief that leads them to do good, to preach more earnestly and to share more willingly. I don’t always like the way they do it and I’m not saying they always get it right. But I hope that God knows the heart.
Hey mackay, thanks for the welcome. I’m waiting for you to expand the windmill analogy
I think God definitely knows the heart.
Old-Timer wrote:Good to see you again, Shawn. I hope you still are happy.
Thanks, Ray. I’m really not happy, but I’ll be okay.
SamBee wrote:I think the three kingdoms makes more sense than turn or burn, and also the idea of redemption for the dead.
Also regardless of the historical validity of the Book of Mormon, I agree with the idea that Jesus would appear to native Americans, and other peoples not just a few Middle Easterners.
Good stuff. I’ll add these to the list.
SamBee wrote:The business about gods, which is so frowned upon by other Christian churches is actually pretty well backed up by scriptures…
And I’ll add this.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Thanks for this Shawn. One other thing I really love about Mormon theology is the pre-existence as well as the notion that we can attain godhood. Sitting on a cloud strumming a harp doesn’t do it for me. Nor does ex nihilo creation.
And this.
SamBee wrote:Spreading out the priesthood is also a pretty nice idea, rather than just one guy per church.
And this.And more later.
Even before I joined the LDS, it always made sense to me that there was more than the Bible out there. A lot of the Bible is also aimed directly at Jews – genealogies etc, but less relevant to us Gentiles. Some of it is clearly of its time, some of it timeless. The church is right to emphasize personal revelation too.
I think Ensign’s position is about the right level. It’s considered
important and we use it, but we don’t do a Watchtower with it and overemphasize it. In general I like Ensign.
I think DarkJedi + Shawn, we don’t talk about the positive aspects of the church regularly enough. We often find aspects of it frustrating, boring or uncomfortable, but it is more than just some cynical moneymaking falsehood as some would have it – it really doesn’t explain why I have a genuine testimony of it.
SamBee wrote:I think DarkJedi + Shawn, we don’t talk about the positive aspects of the church regularly enough. We often find aspects of it frustrating, boring or uncomfortable, but it is more than just some cynical moneymaking falsehood as some would have it – it really doesn’t explain why I have a genuine testimony of it.
That’s why I like this thread (thanks Shawn). I think especially in a community such as this it is easy to be focused on the negative. Of course that’s why I like StayLDS, too, because we aren’t as focused on the negative as some other sites. Some of the earliest and best advice I got here was to look at what I do believe instead of focusing on what I don’t believe. It is easy for me to still see what I don’t believe, but seeing what I do believe has been a great help in rebuilding my faith – there is a foundation there.There is an online community, which is relentlessly negative, I don’t even have to name it. Some of their criticisms are justified, but it is very one sided. If you’re going out, coming in, staying, inactive or full blown hyperactive… you need a balanced view. Please allow me to resurrect this thread (oh, resurrection is another thing to add). I dig it. I added some stuff to original post and cut some of my long, boring, explanations out. I share the same sentiment. I recently told a friend (previous coworker) about my FT and she was kind and caring and invited me to go with her. She is catholic her husband is non denominational. But I find the idea of going to another church very difficult. I think so much of our church is good and the right idea, but when you get I to the nitty gritty if it is when it goes awry. I so believed in the whitewashed version and loved it. But now that I’ve learned more details not available on Sunday, it has broken my heart. I tried to not be offensive in telling her that I couldn’t believe some of the things other religions believed in. There’s no way a baby that died without baptism would go to hell being one of those.
But that’s the same with our religion. My mom would always say she would be our servant in heaven (my dad is not a member, therefore she isn’t sealed and can’t inherit the highest degree). I don’t think god would condemn you or hold you back from his blessings for so etching out of your control. I.e., if your husband chooses to never be baptized.
Kcarp, luckily, that isn’t “established doctrine” – even if too many members might believe it. I know far more members who don’t believe it than that do. Is it mormon, established doctrine, that one must be married or sealed in the temple to go the CK? Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Yes, at some point in the eternities. Absolutely not required in this life, and our vicarious work for deceased spouses who were married to members and never joined is black-and-white proof of that. I see what you are saying. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Kcarp wrote:I tried to not be offensive in telling her that I couldn’t believe some of the things other religions believed in. There’s no way a baby that died without baptism would go to hell being one of those.
But that’s the same with our religion. My mom would always say she would be our servant in heaven (my dad is not a member, therefore she isn’t sealed and can’t inherit the highest degree). I don’t think god would condemn you or hold you back from his blessings for so etching out of your control. I.e., if your husband chooses to never be baptized.
Our church was built in some ways as a reaction to these types of unsettled or troubling things in other 19th century churches. The BoM addresses many of them and then we add our own unique unsettled or troubling issues.
Old-Timer wrote:Yes, at some point in the eternities. Absolutely not required in this life, and our vicarious work for deceased spouses who were married to members and never joined is black-and-white proof of that.
I too believe I get what you are saying. The plan has the potential to be as inclusive and expansive as we are prepared to let it be. Our goal is to do the vicarious temple work for all and let God be the judge. There is tension between the “eternal progression” principle and the “this life is the time” principle. Regardless of the potential, I observe the practice to be substantially exclusive.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.