- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Martha wrote:
I just question how much it really meshes with Mormon doctrine. I haven’t yet thrown out the baby or the bath water. I don’t want to walk away from truth and I don’t want to continue to embrace comfortable falsehoods. It’s important to try and figure out what the real doctrine is. But there are often multiple interpretations of doctrine clouded by the interpreter’s personal beliefs. Pure doctrine is very difficult.
Hi Martha! Perhaps, within the options presented to us there may be
no option that does not include falsehoods(IOW inaccuracies, assumptions, imperfections, etc.). Since my assumptive world collapse/faith crisis, I have imagined myself to be building a structure of belief. Because I wish to remain tethered to the Mormon Church – I work to build bridges with the Mormon structure. Then I went to church one day and we had the lesson on the 3 degrees of glory. I left crestfallen. Was a “quid pro quo” reward system compatible with the atonement of mercy and grace that was speaking to my soul? I wasn’t sure that it was possible to bridge the gap. Some individuals from StayLDS were very helpful to me in looking at the problem from another angle…
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2288&hilit=love+wins My problem comes up in page 3 but the entire thread is worth a read.
The following thread is also very on topic and deals with the idea of different versions of the Gospel:
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=2754&hilit=love+wins Essentially – the Gospel has existed in various forms throughout history and in each time there have been passionate and opinionated individuals that preach it, “know it, live it, and love it.” But I’m not sure that these individuals such as TSM, BRM, BY, Paul, John the B, Jeremiah, Moses, and Elijah would agree on very much about how the gospel should be implemented. I imagine that each of them would need to make adjustments to discard the earthbound cultural trappings and assumptions of their day and more fully embrace those parts of the gospel that are eternal principles. I expect that my loving Savior will mercifully allow me to make similar adjustments as needed at my own “crossing over” and will not hold me to various technicalities.
In my journey, I strive to be led by the spirit and the dictates of my conscience – just as I have been brought up to do. I expect to err and have miss-steps – but I believe the atonement to be real and I will keep moving in the direction the spirit leads.
:thumbup: I want to add that I believe – STRONGLY – that cwald’s sacrifice already has made a difference for his children and the church they are inheriting. I think some of the talks in General Conference are examples of that, since I believe they show that the leadership is hearing about cwald’s pain and trying to address it organization-wide. I have no clue if Elder Holland or President Uchtdorf have been shown excerpts of cwald’s comments here and/or elsewhere (really, they might or might not have had that exposure), but I am confident that they have heard of the stories of people like cwald (and everyone here) and are acting accordingly. Roy wrote:I expect that my loving Savior will mercifully allow me to make similar adjustments as needed at my own “crossing over” and will not hold me to various technicalities.
I should add that even here I expect the necessary adjustments to be made over time and prodded forward “by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—” (never with a “convert or be banished” ultimatum). Perhaps it also helps to see the final judgment as a process rather than an event.
Thanks Ray. Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:The problem is, is what you are saying, and the other people in this thread are saying, is not what is taught at church and from the podium at General conference.
I know – and I don’t care.
What is preached (the current doctrine) works for the majority of the membership, so I’m not going to lobby for it to be changed.Let them hear what they need to hear; I can believe what I need to believe. On top of that, I have explicit permission now, after General Conference, to disagree and still have a place in the Church, and I’m fine with that. I’d be fine without it, but it does help to have it said so directly.
I really like this. Elder Holland’s talk was great.
I also think the old way of explaining kingdoms is, well, old.
🙂 I’ve definitely become universalist. But also individualist in that I think each of us have a different idea of heaven. Its no different in this life. Some are legitimately happy without much progression in this life. Some aren’t happy unless they’re always striving to improve themselves or the world. But both are happy.
I think we all reach the level of progression we want to. Meaning that which we’re willing to do the work to obtain. Some won’t want to do that work and they’ll be happy in their sphere. Some will and they’ll be happy in theirs.
As for the one true church…. It’s the church of god. Not just Mormons. Jesus wasn’t Mormon. Adam wasn’t Mormon. Moses wasn’t Mormon. Etc…
Mormonism is a path. It’s a pretty nice one to me. There sure are a lot of people complaining about how I walk on that path though.
wuwei wrote:Old-Timer wrote:Quote:The problem is, is what you are saying, and the other people in this thread are saying, is not what is taught at church and from the podium at General conference.
I know – and I don’t care.
What is preached (the current doctrine) works for the majority of the membership, so I’m not going to lobby for it to be changed.Let them hear what they need to hear; I can believe what I need to believe. On top of that, I have explicit permission now, after General Conference, to disagree and still have a place in the Church, and I’m fine with that. I’d be fine without it, but it does help to have it said so directly.
I really like this. Elder Holland’s talk was great.
I also think the old way of explaining kingdoms is, well, old.
🙂 I’ve definitely become universalist. But also individualist in that I think each of us have a different idea of heaven. Its no different in this life. Some are legitimately happy without much progression in this life. Some aren’t happy unless they’re always striving to improve themselves or the world. But both are happy.
I think we all reach the level of progression we want to. Meaning that which we’re willing to do the work to obtain. Some won’t want to do that work and they’ll be happy in their sphere. Some will and they’ll be happy in theirs.
As for the one true church…. It’s the church of god. Not just Mormons. Jesus wasn’t Mormon. Adam wasn’t Mormon. Moses wasn’t Mormon. Etc…
Mormonism is a path. It’s a pretty nice one to me. There sure are a lot of people complaining about how I walk on that path though.
Big ol’ +1 to you wuwei
Conversation with myself… me – “I know the church is true.”
myself – “Wait, like this church? only those who go here go to the true church?”
me – “yes”
myself – “What about mom? she goes to a different church!”
me – “yes, but it’s still a mormon church”
myself – “Oh, so as long as it’s a mormon church but not some other it is true?”
me – “yes”
myself – “Well, what if mom believes that heaven isn’t really divided into 3 degrees? Is she STILL in the true church?”
me – “Well, yes.”
myself – “What if everyone in her ward agrees with her. Then are they still the true church?”
me – “yes”
myself – “So it doesn’t matter if they believe differently they’re still members of the true church. So what if they change their name to say “Church of Christ.”
me – “They can’t do that”
myself – “but if they did?”
me – “Then I guess they wouldn’t be the true church”
myself – “Even though the original name of the LDS church was “Church of Christ”?
me – “no it wasn’t”
myself – “This is ridiculous. Someone can believe completely different and still be of the true church. But even someone who believes the same but goes to a non LDS church, they are not a member of the true church? Logic fails to compute. Isn’t it more reasonable to state that all who follow after Christ, believe on His name, repent and are baptized are of the true church of Christ?”
me – “No”
myself -“Why not!?”
me – “Because they aren’t baptized by the priesthood.”
myself [throws hands in air] – “Gah!”
:shifty: Roy, thank you for your thoughtful post. The threads you suggested helped me tie my universalist ideas about salvation back to the church. This was one of my favorite quotes. “Joseph Smith: When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them (all). It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six 1843–44)”
It’s nice to have a quote by JS and other early leaders of the church that say exactly what I believe about eternal progression. I like your analogy of building bridges or ties to the LDS church. Like you, I was feeling like this particular sticking point was a chasm and my “milk” only upbringing and understanding didn’t help to narrow that gap. That thread really helped my understanding. I soooo want to have MercynGrace for my SS teacher.
🙂 I’m glad it helped Martha. That JS qoute is golden! eman I understand the argument of authority. On my mission we would give the example “if you went to your friend to get a drivers license is it valid?” I understand the idea that “club” membership cannot be claimed without permission granted by the proper authority. Where it breaks down for me is if you apply it to families – I am a member of a family and nobody can change that. I can’t believe that loving parents would make their children jump through hoops of “authority” to return home for a reunion. There may be other analogies better that apply to eternity but right now they escape me. I see the purpose of earth life in the Mormon paradigm as an opportunity to gain experience and knowledge, where symbolism plays a major role. I have a harder time applying literal interpretations of authority to an eternal family structure.
Orson wrote:eman I understand the argument of authority. On my mission we would give the example “if you went to your friend to get a drivers license is it valid?” I understand the idea that “club” membership cannot be claimed without permission granted by the proper authority.
Where it breaks down for me is if you apply it to families – I am a member of a family and nobody can change that. I can’t believe that loving parents would make their children jump through hoops of “authority” to return home for a reunion. There may be other analogies better that apply to eternity but right now they escape me. I see the purpose of earth life in the Mormon paradigm as an opportunity to gain experience and knowledge, where symbolism plays a major role. I have a harder time applying literal interpretations of authority to an eternal family structure.
This point is driven home to me constantly when I hear folks share their testimonies of spirits being freed from spirit prison by a temple ordinance.
Really??
What kind of loving Father-God would bar the door to His house and refuse His children entry based on another of His children’s performance of an ordinance. That alone is a violation of justice. Can anyone really imagine the God of Mormonism saying “Sorry, Sam, you have to wait outside until your great-great-great-grand nephew twice removed takes a slip of paper to the temple, dons a jumpsuit, and gets wet on your behalf?”
The ordinances of the temple are designed to turn our hearts to our children and to our forebears. Every time we perform an ordinance, we essentially stand up for another child of God, just as Christ did (albeit in an incomparably minute way) and say, “God, this is my brother/sister and I want him/her to share in the inheritance to which Christ has made me joint-heir.” This act is supposed to change us from self-centered beings to charitable beings who look outward and “desire all to receive”.
The same scenario applies in our efforts to share the gospel to the living. If we’re doing it because we believe we need ordinances to “sell” God on the idea of saving His children, we’re preaching a God who’s not worth following.
My .02.
That last comment is a great example of why I respect m&g so much. Old-Timer wrote:That last comment is a great example of why I respect m&g so much.
Thanks, Ray. The feeling is definitely mutual.
I’ve missed you all and this forum. The last year has been a blur for me as I’ve been trying to hold down an intense job with a high maintenance boss. Most recently, I’m transitioning from that job to another that is less intense. Fingers crossed for a smooth transition.
If Church0333 hadn’t accidentally spammed the whole forum, I might not have dropped in. LOL. This thread immediately caught my eye, of course.
See church0333, that wasn’t a mistake. It was inspired. :thumbup: Hi – I ran across a blog post at http://rationalfaiths.com/the-universalism-of-mormonism/
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.