- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
cwald wrote:
That is one hell of a mental gymnastic Orson. I suppose it IS possible – but not if the LDS church is “the one true church on the face of the earth.” and/or the “church is perfect, but the people aren’t.” The church can’t have it both ways. I know they want to – but they can’t. Of course, US stayldsers
can, because most of us here don’t believe in those phrases and have an entirely different perspective of what “truth” and the purpose of the church is all about. So in principle for this discussion, yes, I suppose it is possible. But is certainly cannot be used as an apologetic approach from a TBM standpoint – trying to defend the church as “God’s kingdom on earth, restoration of all things, one true church with the only priesthood power to save souls” etc etc. It doesn’t work – it doesn’t make sense, and the pieces don’t fit. Paradox. Apologetic, no. Mental gymnastics, no. My point was the teaching of exclusive authority ends up being the catalyst that makes the church ultimately a valuable tool. Think about learning humility and charity. When you view yourself as correct and those who don’t agree with you as deluded, that is a form of pride – especially IF you end up not having any real external basis for your ‘truths’ (physical form) being more correct than the others.
As the searching – that I believe the church encourages us to do – leads to knowledge; the picture can come into focus in a very different way. How valuable is the prior belief? I tend to think its value lies in how it defines the emerging perspective.
To me the process has many parallels to the conflicting commands given in the garden of Eden. If there were a community in the garden they could reasonably demonize Eve for partaking of the fruit, but our perspective here recognizes Eve took an essential step – and initiated the progress of all mankind.
What I was trying to say originally is: How do we experience that “stepping out of Eden” if Eden never existed in the first place??
Quote:Cadence
you never know when we could get a prophet that gets some mental disorder and starts spouting of crazy stuff and to many members interpret it as God speaking.
hmm… like speaking in tounges? I read a lot about that in the early church, but I have never seen it in the modern era.
Quote:
Besides I think it is fairly obvious that prophets have let us astray many times. How many early saints died because they were told all is well and God will protect you.I agree, looking at church history it is easy for me to see that “direct revelation” has not historicaly been what I was instructed to sell on my mission.
I’m sure they are much smarter than I, but I don’t believe that any church leader is any more inspired that anyone else on this site, or any other child of God, male or female for that matter.
f4h1
Orson wrote:Apologetic, no. Mental gymnastics, no. My point was the teaching of exclusive authority ends up being the catalyst that makes the church ultimately a valuable tool. Think about learning humility and charity. When you view yourself as correct and those who don’t agree with you as deluded, that is a form of pride – especially IF you end up not having any real external basis for your ‘truths’ (physical form) being more correct than the others.
As the searching – that I believe the church encourages us to do – leads to knowledge; the picture can come into focus in a very different way. How valuable is the prior belief? I tend to think its value lies in how it defines the emerging perspective.
To me the process has many parallels to the conflicting commands given in the garden of Eden. If there were a community in the garden they could reasonably demonize Eve for partaking of the fruit, but our perspective here recognizes Eve took an essential step – and initiated the progress of all mankind.
What I was trying to say originally is: How do we experience that “stepping out of Eden” if Eden never existed in the first place??
I have no idea what any of this means or how it relates to your original post dealing with F4 that I made my comment about.
I’m not sure which F it fits in necessarily, but that thread about the changes in the BoM headings is another very recent example why Benson’s entire 14 Fundamentals of the Prophet talk is so very false and dangerous. It sure makes SWK and BRM look silly now doesn’t it. Prophets will never lead us astray. Please. The Prophet will never lead us astray? Of really? BY led the church “astray” as far as the priesthood ban is concerned, and the rest of the prophets didn’t do a thing to correct it until DOM finally had the guts to bring up the topic, and still the apostles wouldn’t buy into – so it took another 20 years.
So there you go, even the church disagreed with this concept. If DOM, THE PROPHET OF THE LORD, was opposed to the ban, than why didn’t his apostles support him? Because – they didn’t believe in the 14Fs either. Why should we?
There has been nothing said in this thread that gives me any faith whatsoever that F4 is a correct principle. Nothing. I’m excited for number 5 – something positive finally to talk about it in regards to this overall atrocious message.
cwald wrote:I have no idea what any of this means or how it relates to your original post dealing with F4 that I made my comment about.
Perfect!
It just goes to illustrate how we can listen to someone’s words and have no idea what they are really trying to communicate. This is changing the subject but it’s an excellent point on the subject of having charity for others and giving them the benefit of the doubt as far as possible. I’m sure we all do it all the time.
I realize my point does require a ‘twisted’ view of God to some perspectives, but I simply like to explore ideas. I have long lost the desire for attachment to any particular view, I simply want to consider all the crazy possibilities. [“Crazy is right” – there I said it for you.]
The point is simple: The “divine” purpose of the church may not match the face value purpose. This idea agrees with Doug’s point that the statement is true by definition. The church will serve God because God is what is – God is not what we wish him to be or exactly as we portray or even comprehend him to be. God us far more complex yet in application far more simple than we probably realize. God is in the accepting, the loving, the truth, the peace — but to know light you must also experience dark. One cannot exist without the other.
See, twisted….. Trying to come to terms with the complex realities. No, everything is not clear cut the way I used to imagine. How do I have more charity for people where they stand? Personally I don’t see any point in calling out someones BS when doing so will only create a wall between me an them. Of course I know it looks like BS from my point of view, how does that help me from their point of view? What are the truths that their view does align with? That’s what I want to know.
Of course that’s just me.
Well, this post actually DOES make some sense to me. Orson wrote:[“Crazy is right” – there I said it for you.]
🙂 cwald wrote:Well, this post actually DOES make some sense to me.
Orson wrote:[“Crazy is right” – there I said it for you.]
🙂 Happy to entertain, if nothing else.
With that 😆 , I’ll lock this and move on to #5.
- The topic ‘The 14 Fundamentals: Number 4’ is closed to new replies.