- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Old-Timer wrote:
I agree completely that Philippians 2: 5-6 focuses on humility and that the passage generally is mistranslated and misunderstood, Roy (even though I think both interpretations have merit)- but, again, dishonesty is not a good word to use in a situation where someone has multiple readings from which to choose and simply picks the one that fits their paradigm best.
That is EXACTLY what we ask others to allow us to do– and when we do it we aren’t being dishonest. In fact, we are being fully honest – as are they. We and they simply are seeing things differently. Ray, Thanks for calling me out on this and Sambee, thanks for the Greek perspective and ambiguities. I am glad that the “did not think it robbery” translation is a possible rendering. I suppose “dishonest” was a poor word choice. I know that I do this type of cherry picking. I justify it because I don’t think everything in the scriptures is inspired. When I see a great quote (“all people are equal unto God” or the God who weeps) then I take it as a ray of sunshine. When I see quotes/stories about objectionable things then I just kinda dismiss them as being not relevant to me. Seems like JS did something like this in his translation of the Bible – making it better fit his paradigm. So when I repeat a quote out of context for a desired effect, I in no way feel constrained by the original intent of the speaker.
I guess it is harder for me to cut groups the same amount of slack. I guess I expect groups to be wiser than individuals. That for large groups there might be a greater chance of people in the group that see things differently and that they might moderate the extremes of the group. (Did I mention that I have few compunctions and that things that my wife thinks are wrong just on principle – I have no problem with. She almost never goes along with my shenanigans!) I might be able to manipulate numbers and stats but I would expect it to be more difficult to convince the group that my manipulation is acceptable. But I can also see how that perspective doesn’t match to well with reality. If I am a member of a group and instead of “manipulate numbers and stats” I tell the group narrative in a way that paints the best possible picture of the group and furthers group goals – then I might expect this rendering to be accepted by the group. It is something worth considering.
It is still hard to not expect more from the church then I do from myself. I shall need to practice at it.
mom3 wrote:Anyway in my enthusiasm I mentioned the Pres. Hinckley Larry King Live comment. Then I scrambled up my words a bit. Well I set the teacher off. She was red in the face, pulpit pounding and pacing. Saying – she wasn’t afraid what others thought. This was the truth and she would stand by it. And on.
I too thought of the Larry King Live comment but I interpret that comment of “I don’t know that we teach that” to refer to the first half of the couplet. Since the lesson dealt mainly with the second part of the couplet, I let it slide. DW is the designated sub-teacher for no-shows and she was nervous at the thought of having to teach this lesson. It seemed to her to be a difficult lesson to teach.
I sometimes have my own “enthusiasm” moments – I think mine tend to be centered around the obedience=blessings formula. I just can’t help but insert the comment that the promised blessings may never materialize in this life. IOW, you could be obedient to the best of your ability and still have a life governed by Murphy’s law (anything that can go wrong, will) until you die.
SamBee wrote:Churchill was really like, i.e. a imperialist reactionary. who just happened to be the right man in WWII and pretty objectionable out of it.
One of the advantages of being able to quote things out of context/find gems amongst the dross is that even difficult people like Churchill can be mined for inspiration. You just ignore all the unsavory parts.
Quote:One of the advantages of being able to quote things out of context/find gems amongst the dross is that even difficult people like Churchill can be mined for inspiration. You just ignore all the unsavory parts.
Churchill certainly came out with some good quotes… but there’s just too much other stuff. Good writer though, if biased.
Joseph Smith certainly produced some dross, but I find he produced so much good stuff that I can tolerate that.
My learning continues. Thanks Mackay for your protection of my hurting heart. As we all progress through life it is wonderful to have some one wrap an arm around you, whether you have caused the problem or not. I knew I was in deep water – and the past 24 hours I have spent time analyzing why it was important for me to tread in. What did I assume I could accomplish? What was the ultimate goal? I believe this life is for learning and this experience affords me a lot of learning.
Sambee- I agree with Mackay’s comment – The Churchill thought wasn’t saying Churchill was excellent or a life model, but in that moment I could decide to walk away from the church because I cause disruption or I could see another path. The other path popped up as Churchill. The author I read isn’t the only author who credits Churchill with this capability. This author also wrote about Churchill’s blindspots, maybe not as deeply as you know them, but he didn’t make him wart free. As I try to grow up in life I am realizing, as has been pointed out, that no human is flawless. Even the greats or the ones I find great – have drawbacks. To pull a Ray here – Jesus Christ, in many people’s eyes is flawed. Though most Christian’s announce him as perfect – others find fault with what he did or didn’t do.
I am coming to believe that life is a choice. Every person we see, every event, everything is a point of view choice. That is the lesson I take from yesterday. I have chosen to remain a participant and attendee of a community. That community has unwritten rules of civility and expectation. Since I choose to participate I need to honor their code. If taking off your shoes is part of their tradition, I will. And vice-versa. Because I attend doesn’t mean I agree. If I feel a need to impart something I will choose how to do so – full well knowing that I reap the end result – whatever it may be. What I need to decide is why I need to say anything.
I love climbing mountains in my faith. Thanks for being great climbing buddies.
New Revised Standard Edition (NRSV) has a beautiful rendition of the passage: Quote:Philippians 2:3-8:
Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others. Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death — even death on a cross
.
Mom3, I love your patience, your perseverance and your charity. In short, I love reading your posts 
Just for instruction and clarification, Pres. Hinckley was addressing ONLY the idea that God, the Father, once was a mortal before becoming GOD in his interview. That is the only part of the couplet that was mentioned and about which he was asked – not that we can become like God. Also, as I’ve written previously, “I don’t know that . . .” was a very common way in his generation to say politely, “I wouldn’t say that . . .” I heard it hundreds of times growing up from my father and others of his and my grandparents’ generations.
Mom3, I apologize if I upset you. I was picking up on a little thing. I agree with most of the rest of the post, sometimes, it’s difficult to say things in church without causing a scene. Personally I was a bit disappointed by GBH’s interview at the time, because it seemed so motivated by PR and damage control. I really didn’t like it… alright, he could have disowned certain stuff, but I felt he should have said, “well, we teach X, Y & Z, and are not ashamed of it… and that’s what sets us apart from other churches”. But you were definitely right to bring it up, especially since it’s a lot more recent than either Snow or Smith’s comments, and our church has always bowed to more recent prophets… which is probably a good thing in regard to certain doctrine. And from what you say, I believe you handled the fall out the right way.
There’s always something. Sexist and anti-black comments tend to be extremely infrequent in my ward (thank God), but occasionally there are other things. I have to weigh up whether it’s worth it or not. Most LDS for example misunderstand “thee and thou”, but there’s a time and a place for it.
Quote:To pull a Ray here – Jesus Christ, in many people’s eyes is flawed. Though most Christian’s announce him as perfect – others find fault with what he did or didn’t do.
Yeah, some people these days think Jesus was completely insane, or twisted… if they believe he actually existed. And we know from comments in the Gospels alone that many people disagreed with him, and didn’t like him while he was alive. In particular, Jewish leaders, Romans and people from his home district are all listed as having issues with him. Some of them thought him deluded, some demon possessed, some a dangerous subversive, some a “wine bibber” etc
mom3 wrote:I have chosen to remain a participant and attendee of a community. That community has unwritten rules of civility and expectation. Since I choose to participate I need to honor their code. If taking off your shoes is part of their tradition, I will. And vice-versa. Because I attend doesn’t mean I agree.
I think that is a very wise, and hard-learned, insight. It’s a good reminder that we are guests, and slightly outsiders. We should never have to compromise our principals… and if someone starts making intolerant comments based on race, gender, orientation, or political affiliation, I’m not going to sit quiet, but when it comes to doctrines, we probably do need to exercise caution.
In the case of the “as man is…” doctrine, I honestly can’t think of any value that it has to people here on the earth. If it’s real, we will find out about it in the next life, if not, who cares. Personally, I’d rather sit around on a cloud, playing heavenly versions of the latest video games than be responsible for not answering prayers of the suffering faithful and have them have to write sermons to each other about “Why God (me) allows bad things happen to good people.” For me, the value of any related doctrine is in the very this-wordly concept of trying to be LIKE God/Jesus, and it can be easily summed up in teachings like Philppians, listed above, or Matthew 5:48, or Romans 6.
Quote:It’s a good reminder that we are guests, and slightly outsiders. We should never have to compromise our principals… and if someone starts making intolerant comments based on race, gender, orientation, or political affiliation, I’m not going to sit quiet, but when it comes to doctrines, we probably do need to exercise caution.
Yep, I’d agree with that. But we are not outsiders or guests. We’re members. Quite different. We’re not just outsiders from the gay rights movement protesting Prop 8 or whatever it’s called, or Democrats crashing a Republican convention, we’re members… Therefore, we “probably do need to exercise caution”, but we are entitled to speak out to some degree.
Quote:In the case of the “as man is…” doctrine, I honestly can’t think of any value that it has to people here on the earth. If it’s real, we will find out about it in the next life, if not, who cares. Personally, I’d rather sit around on a cloud, playing heavenly versions of the latest video games than be responsible for not answering prayers of the suffering faithful and have them have to write sermons to each other about “Why God (me) allows bad things happen to good people.” For me, the value of any related doctrine is in the very this-wordly concept of trying to be LIKE God/Jesus, and it can be easily summed up in teachings like Philppians, listed above, or Matthew 5:48, or Romans 6.
I’ve never really appreciated the HF has a body thing, but one thing did strike me as positive about both these doctrines…
Firstly, it makes for a more sympathetic HF, because he knows what we have experienced down here. Secondly, I think it can be a positive thing to aim for, but without becoming arrogant (which compromises it)
” I’d rather sit around on a cloud, playing heavenly versions of the latest video games than be responsible for not answering prayers of the suffering faithful “
Being raised in another tradition, LDS teaching here is far, far more interesting for me. I think 10,000 years of harp playing would not only make me equivalent to Paganini or Jimi Hendrix, but also incredibly bored of it.
I don’t, however, agree with the idea we can progress infinitely. Surely at some point, there’s omnipotence, and then you can’t do anything else.
I think mackay11’s original post was a great example of when to speak up and when to let it slide. He didn’t refute (at least not as written in the post) that the LDS Church is the only true church, but did foster an acceptance of and love toward others whose faith is different, but also good. There is nothing earth-shattering about that, and it is, in fact, our doctrine. It’s just that when we talk in absolute terms, we often trample the good that is in the fringe. mackay11’s thoughts simply support inclusiveness, and cooperation over competition. Hard to argue with it, and exactly the message that I would have delivered if I were teaching that lesson, even if I was trying to adhere to the party line.
But on the more ‘dodgy doctrine’ of the man-to-God concept, he chose to stay out of the fray of what the doctrine is, but instead focused on what we can do about it in our life, and interjected on becoming charitable like God.
So, my point is simply that because we have “heterodox” views, it is our responsibility to encourage charity, love, inclusiveness, etc, without trying directly to tear down the orthodox views held by most everyone else in the room. Like mom3 said, if the custom is to remove your shoes…
Personally, I love the idea that as man is God once was. I know GBH was distancing himself from this statement, but I find the idea really appealing on pretty much every level. I don’t really know how to relate to a God who has never been human. But then, maybe that’s why we have Jesus. SamBee – I am a bit gun shy about myself today and my responses. Thank you for posting your thoughts and for reaching out to me. My intent of bringing up the issue was that we as LDS members like the idea, but other faiths find it offensive. Earlier the teacher talked about how we have this great doctrine and how helpful it is. I could support it until we came to the idea that everyone else should love it, too and that we should boldly proclaim it. I don’t mind proclaiming, but I also believe President Hinckley knew it was a challenge and not something to be answered so quickly. The problem for yesterday lay in my presentation coupled, I am sure with other rogue words I say. Most of all – thanks everyone for helping me think. As I continue to repeat – I am learning a lot right now.
I think you were well within your rights to raise it. These lessons are much better when people don’t just parrot lines they’ve heard elsewhere. I always appreciate it when someone has a fresh perspective in class – even if I don’t agree with it. Some faiths e.g. Islam, it’s a definite no no, could get you killed in some places.
I’m hard pressed to think of another church which teaches something similar.
But in others… Hinduism considers us all divine already, Shinto has a similar notion, and the New Age wavers between this idea and a kind of pantheism. In Buddhism, it’s possible to reincarnate as a god, but it’s bad in the sense that the sheer pleasure and comfort of it distract you from moving toward enlightenment.
Judaism and Islam frown upon it… so do most churches, although Jesus is an interesting parallel. If you believe in the Trinity, then God the Father not only was, but is a man as well (Jesus), and Jesus is a man who is fully divine.
So for mainstream churches, you’re right. It’s bad… they probably are remembering that Satan told Adam and Eve that they could be as gods.
It’s a seriously interesting doctrine, but I think other more basic ideas are in order for us all. Jesus was a wonderful man touched by the divine, but he washed people’s feet and never behaved like a nobleman… and he tells us the meek will inherit the Earth… the lesson there is service and kindness which comes before aspiring to divinity. We can never work on that enough. I wish I was better at it.
I think most lags would be shocked a bit by the officials doctrine: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormonism-101#C14 Do Latter-day Saints believe they can become “gods”?
Latter-day Saints believe that God wants us to become like Him. But this teaching is often misrepresented by those who caricature the faith. The Latter-day Saint belief is no different than the biblical teaching, which states, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together” (Romans 8:16-17). Through following Christ’s teachings, Latter-day Saints believe all people can become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4).
Do Latter-day Saints believe that they will “get their own planet”?
No. This idea is not taught in Latter-day Saint scripture, nor is it a doctrine of the Church. This misunderstanding stems from speculative comments unreflective of scriptural doctrine. Mormons believe that we are all sons and daughters of God and that all of us have the potential to grow during and after this life to become like our Heavenly Father (see Romans 8:16-17). The Church does not and has never purported to fully understand the specifics of Christ’s statement that “in my Father’s house are many mansions” (John 14:2).
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
johnh, many members might be shocked (since most don’t know how to frame the first answer in strictly Biblical terms), but both of those statements are 100% accurate descriptions of our beliefs.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.