- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Fwiw, Rob4Hope, I am confident I could say what you just said in Sacrament Meeting and not get any pushback whatsoever. I might have to alter a few words here and there, but I would get nothing but supporting nods. I actually have delivered messages quite similar to that, and even, a couple of times, talked about how, without a foundation of faith, Jesus could be seen as an abject failure – with Paul and the Roman Empire as the success stories.
As in so many things, the presentation is just as important as the message – and, often, more important.
I answered the question about core beliefs when in faith crisis mode but I think the question was core beliefs after a faith transition. Rob4Hope wrote:I have a philosphical view of what Jesus did, and it resonates with me. In my mind, when Jesus took upon Himself the sins of the world, he didn’t take the punish only as it were…I believe he took on Himself the responsibility for committing the sin in the first place. When He did that, He became the most vile, loathsome, wicked individual who has or will ever exist.
That got me thinking… (so look out
Jesus goes to the garden of Gethsemane and takes upon himself the sins of all mankind. From the perspective of the apostles Jesus didn’t become the most vile, loathsome, wicked person that has ever existed; he was still a healer, a servant, the master. We’ve got the story of Jesus healing the ear of the servant of the high priest immediately afterwards. In the absence of a change in actual behaviors what made Jesus evil? Maybe he was only evil in the eyes of his father. Maybe by this point the trial had already passed. Maybe it was the difference between becoming evil and suffering all the eventualities of being evil.
Rob4Hope wrote:I believe this. This is something I believe about the atonement. True or not..I believe it,…and WHY I believe it is because I can’t connect with the glorious Jesus (or God); the only Jesus I can connect to is the broken evil one. I connect with the wounds, the sorrow, the sadness, the longing, the suffering. Something inside my own sympathies, and because of my own wounds, connects at that level. This RESONATES!!!
I agree. The whole experience humanized Jesus and made him relatable or maybe it made use relatable, I’m not sure how that works.
Getting back to the question, what are my core beliefs during a faith transition? It’s a moving target, forget what I said and ask me again in a year.
I’ve found some measure of comfort by substituting all of humanity in the role of Jesus. It’s brought some insight that has kept me going.
slowlylosingit wrote:Thank you DJ for your thoughts. I think I have some similar thoughts, but I think my beliefs and understanding on Christ are a lot stronger than on God. So when my brother asked me those questions about God, I just couldn’t answer. I hadn’t really faced those questions yet, within myself especially. It’s going to be a long work in progress, this is where I fight my impatience. [emoji30]
I can say my beliefs about Christ are also stronger than my feelings/beliefs about Heavenly Father. I do have a testimony of the Savior, not so of Heavenly Father.
nibbler wrote:garden of Gethsemane and takes upon himself the sins of all mankind. From the perspective of the apostles Jesus didn’t become the most vile, loathsome, wicked person that has ever existed; he was still a healer, a servant, the master. We’ve got the story of Jesus healing the ear of the servant of the high priest immediately afterwards. In the absence of a change in actual behaviors what made Jesus evil? Maybe he was only evil in the eyes of his father. Maybe by this point the trial had already passed. Maybe it was the difference between becoming evil and suffering all the eventualities of being evil.
I also get the impression from the apostles that Jesus never became the most vile, loathsome and wicked person. For some reason, this doesn’t feel right to me. It is perhaps another contradiction. On one side, we are told that we can’t pay the price for sin and be saved, because we are not capable….and yet here is Jesus who can pay it, and yet He is still able to perform miracles?
So, I am kindof left with a dilemma. On one side, Jesus paid for our sins, but didn’t commit them–we did that. And on the other side, who takes responsibility for committing the sins in the first place?
So, this strange perspective seems to separate responsibility for committing sins from paying for the consequences of those sins. Does this mean I get to spend eternity knowing I committed sins and was fully responsible for them, but didn’t have to pay for them? And Jesus…who somehow descended below all things (whatever that means) has no understanding of what it means to commit a sin himself because he never did, nor did he take that on himself either?
I don’t bye it. I can’t see Jesus descending below all things–like we have been taught (and just that choice of words makes very little sense), unless HE BECAME the horrible sinner–being responsible for committing the sin, and then PAID IT. JESUS didn’t escape the law…he paid the required price, and because the law was satisfied, ALL OF IT (including original responsibility for the sins), he became again justified.
So, in my mind, Jesus was able to heal and do everything else, because he was justified–the penalties had been paid. He descended below all things by BECOMING, and then overcame it by PAYING.
This just feels right with me. I have no real solid doctrinal of philosophical foundation to base it…its just a feeling. For me it works.
For Jesus to “descend below all things”…he had to BECOME something that required him to make that descent. How could the whole thing be real for Him had it happened any other way?
R4H, You are asking doctrinal questions. While that is a normal part of faith transition, just keep in mind that this site isn’t about finding truth, it is about finding peace. No one here is qualified to explore these questions with you. The range of beliefs here is so broad that there will never be consensus. We need to be careful to keep this site accessible for people of different beliefs. What unites us is our disorientation and efforts to stand on our own feet again. The particulars of the gospel are a different matter all together.
On Own Now wrote:R4H,
You are asking doctrinal questions. While that is a normal part of faith transition, just keep in mind that this site isn’t about finding truth, it is about finding peace. No one here is qualified to explore these questions with you. The range of beliefs here is so broad that there will never be consensus. We need to be careful to keep this site accessible for people of different beliefs. What unites us is our disorientation and efforts to stand on our own feet again. The particulars of the gospel are a different matter all together.
OON, is there a site where doctrinal questions can be asked? And if I have a core belief that is part or an emerging part of my FC struggle, is that wrong to have? I confess that some of my previous questions were more parenthetical than direct questions.
If I struggle with doctrinal concerns, and this site doesn’t allow such things…can you recommend where I CAN ask questions?…or share such beliefs?
My bishop doesn’t want to hear it, my wife didn’t want to hear it, other sites castigate and chastise you for even having such questions…so does standing on your own feet mean you are required to own your own beliefs (and unanswered questions), and you and ONLY you are responsible for those?
OON…is the goal to become a doctrinal island, never sharing those beliefs or questioning them BECAUSE there will never be consensus–so to avoid any dialog or potential conflict, we simply don’t share?
R4H, if there is one fairly common doctrinal stance among the many participants here, I would say it is a belief that ‘truth’ is less complicated, less knowable, and less important than we thought it was when we were all-in believers of the LDS faith. I wish I could find this specific story, but I do remember reading a journal or autobiography one time a couple of decades ago from one of the wives of BY. She didn’t have a really close relationship with her ‘husband’, but mentioned that she was invited to dine with him and a small dinner party. She said the conversation turned to speculation about what we would eat and drink in the celestial kingdom. Her take on it was that it was a lighthearted topic that no one was concerned with answering the question with any seriousness. It had been an enjoyable dinner topic because everyone acknowledged that it wasn’t something they were really going to be able to figure out. She went away pleased with the evening.
On Own Now wrote:R4H, if there is one fairly common doctrinal stance among the many participants here, I would say it is a belief that ‘truth’ is less complicated, less knowable, and less important than we thought it was when we were all-in believers of the LDS faith.
I wish I could find this specific story, but I do remember reading a journal or autobiography one time a couple of decades ago from one of the wives of BY. She didn’t have a really close relationship with her ‘husband’, but mentioned that she was invited to dine with him and a small dinner party. She said the conversation turned to speculation about what we would eat and drink in the celestial kingdom. Her take on it was that it was a lighthearted topic that no one was concerned with answering the question with any seriousness. It had been an enjoyable dinner topic because everyone acknowledged that it wasn’t something they were really going to be able to figure out. She went away pleased with the evening.
What I just heard was:
“R4H….your doctrinal musings are not important….to me or others, because they are
… a lighthearted topic that no one [is] concerned with answering the question with any seriousness.” Really?
My take on Jesus “descending below all things” might not resonate with you (which is fine)…but it is a FC core belief that has helped me, and I have made an effort to comply with Ray’s request to “stay on topic”. In each case I have stated it as my opinion, my take, my feelings, or something unique to me.
Sometimes I don’t get this site.
I don’t know if this will help in the descending below all things ideas but I’ll try. Years ago when my kids were little and all their grandparents were alive and well I had a strange experience. While I was making dinner one night I was overcome with the feeling of having all of my family die and having no one to share the grief or experience with. The feeling stayed with me through dinner. I couldn’t understand it, I couldn’t reason it in my mind. Just a few years later, my mom – an only child – lost both of her parents. She had no siblings to help her deal with all the details. Yes she had her kids but all of us had other things, and we hadn’t known her parents all her life. A few years after that the same thing happened to my husband. Two people close to me experienced something I will never experience – had I not experienced vicariously I would not have had the empathy I needed for the minor support I could give.
That is how I sense the idea of how Christ descended below all things. He didn’t become a different being, but he felt, experienced, was impacted by the feelings that everyone of us in our lowest moments goes to. He didn’t become pregnant and have labor pains, nor did he become the abuser inflicting damage without thought. He moved into a realm of full intense awareness. My guess is it was a complex experience that none of us will ever be able to decipher.
Rob4Hope wrote:I don’t bye it. I can’t see Jesus descending below all things–like we have been taught (and just that choice of words makes very little sense), unless HE BECAME the horrible sinner–being responsible for committing the sin, and then PAID IT. JESUS didn’t escape the law…he paid the required price, and because the law was satisfied, ALL OF IT (including original responsibility for the sins), he became again justified.
So, in my mind, Jesus was able to heal and do everything else, because he was justified–the penalties had been paid. He descended below all things by BECOMING, and then overcame it by PAYING.
This just feels right with me. I have no real solid doctrinal of philosophical foundation to base it…its just a feeling. For me it works.
That is fine. Really we will never know the particulars in this life. I do however know many people at church that seem to think that Jesus was Perfect and was always perfectly sinless. This very assertion is at the heart of the atonement for them. They declare that Jesus could not have given the atonement if he had committed even one minor sin. For them it “works” to emphasize his state of being without blemish.
What I believe OON to be saying is that the different approaches seem to work more or less equally well for different people. We therefore try to make room for both (or all) approaches since our mission is essentially to help people to stay LDS in whatever way works for them.
Rob, as directly as I can say this, what you heard OON say is nothing close to what OON wrote and meant. That can happen sometimes simply because people see and describe things differently than each other, but it also can happen when someone is hyper-sensitive and prone to see criticism that isn’t there. The hype-sensitivity can be reasonable and understandable (given past experiences), but it is important, I think, to try to analyze why you read those words so radically differently than they were meant and, probably, so radically differently than they were read by most, if not all, of the rest of the people who read them.
I don’t mean this comment to be harsh or seen as critical. I mean it simply to point out that trying to understand why two people can read the same thing and reach radically different conclusions is a vital part of learning to find peace with differences – and a huge step toward charity.
Roy wrote:For them it “works” to emphasize his state of being without blemish.
What I believe OON to be saying is that the different approaches seem to work more or less equally well for different people. We therefore try to make room for both (or all) approaches since our mission is essentially to help people to stay LDS in whatever way works for them.
+1, I think Roy said what I was thinking.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.