- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
jeriboy wrote:
Ray, question? the above reminded me of a question I have been searching for for over 25 years. I think it’s in the D&C about the difficulties that will spread round the world beginning at the Lord’s house. A friend of mine thinks that was fullfilled when the saints were driven from Missouri. If anything has ever been said from higher up I would love to hear it, thanks.
jeriboy, I know this was directed to Ray but I want to comment.The redemption of Zion; the cleansing of the Lord’s house; even the Second Coming of the Lord — I view all of these as needing to take place in my own heart, first and foremost.
Whether they occur in the world doesn’t matter a hill of beans, if they haven’t already taken place in my heart.
HiJolly
Ray said:
Quote:“My own take on this is that the false traditions of OUR fathers will be removed slowly, bit by bit, bitter fruit by bitter fruit – not any faster than the general church membership can bear it. I believe that is why the Priesthood ban took so long to be lifted – that the Lord waited to give the revelation until the Church as a whole was ready to receive it.”
Wow…what a 180 degree viewpoint from my own. That’s a very interesting way to look at things. I’m glad you said it that way Ray. It really helps to see how many in the mainstream Church think these days. I just read Jacob 5 and can see how one could read it that way.
The fundamentalist viewpoint, of course, is that a stream is always purest at it’s source. The removal of the concessions that have been made to fit in with the Gentiles will constitute the “final pruning”.
How in the world all Mormons are ever going to come to a consensus on things so important, I just don’t know. It’s going to take some sort of major event to set things in order IMHO.
Do you guys that feel this way feel that it is just coincidence that each of these “bitter fruits” being removed cause the mainstream Church to fit in with the secular world just a little more?
I suppose some of us look at things like homosexual behavior being viewed as good in our society as progression toward God-like behavior, and some of us view it as going in the opposite direction. I don’t think there is any middle ground, but I could be wrong of course.
My opinion only….
Thanks HiJolly, I hope anybody will be willing to make comments. jeriboy wrote:One thing you will see, the church and it’s people are as well prepared as any people on earth to organize to meet emergencies.
To be completely honest with myself, I admit this is one of many factors somewhere in the back of my mind that points me in the direction of staying in the LDS community. I wouldn’t say it is a primary factor I think about all the time by any means, but I do think about it.
History goes through cycles, and we never know exactly what is around the bend. I tell you, there is no other tribe or social group better that I would want to be in if the poop hit the fan (for any reason, natural or divine/apocalyptic). Mormons are far better prepared, and have a thoroughly proven track record of banding together and surviving.
I mean just in my local ward alone, we have many survival and food storage nuts, not to mention half a dozen licensed HAM radio operators. Also the ward is used to working together on community projects (moves, service, etc.)
HiJolly wrote:The redemption of Zion; the cleansing of the Lord’s house; even the Second Coming of the Lord — I view all of these as needing to take place in my own heart, first and foremost.
Whether they occur in the world doesn’t matter a hill of beans, if they haven’t already taken place in my heart.
What HiJolly said.
What will the church be to me? What will it be to my children? Will we cast off the false traditions of our very own fathers (and thus make their buttons pop off with delight)?
@Bruce: I think a lot of us here see “the source” as being the Holy One, with each of us individually being as close as we decide to be. For me, what holds true for Bruce and Tom holds true for Ahmed, Wu, and Babatunde. The rain is falling down all around us and our neighbors. So listening for common threads among the most reverent and thoughtful among the Buddhists, Catholics, Muslims, and Jews is a strong way to dispel, not our cherished purity, but our cherished bitter sins.
I see your point Tom, and agree in principle. I would respectfully submit, however, that if the best thinking/beliefs of Budhists, Catholics, Muslims, and Jews (and Christians for that matter) are “good enough” that a restoration would not have been necessary. I sincerely hope that we don’t fall into catogorizing everthing that has been brought forth in this last dispensation, that is uncomfortable in secular society, as “false traditions”.
My 1 1/2 cents….
Amen, Bruce. That’s part of the balance for me that can be hard to find. Bruce in Montana wrote:
Do you guys that feel this way feel that it is just coincidence that each of these “bitter fruits” being removed cause the mainstream Church to fit in with the secular world just a little more?This may come out of left field, but I actually think the secular world has been trending towards religion and the spiritual at a much faster pace than the other way around. These things always go in “pendulum” back and forth, but I know that out of 535 congressman (100 senators, 435 reps) that only one, as in the number 1, are confessed agnostic.(Bernie Sanders, I think)
It’s pretty safe to say that there were more than 1 that were signers of the declaration of independence in 1776! (Franklin for sure, would be one, any number of others would be debatable, again depending on your definition of “belief” and “God”
I’m not sure how to define it, but if you count “victorian principles” as being based in religious philosophy then the U.S. is definitely more “religious” than it was 30 years ago. As an example, Roe v. Wade wouldn’t have happened under the current Supreme Court.
And, the issues you mentioned (and that I imagine you were thinking
I think the right-wing media has alarmed the right so much at this point, that it feels like there really is a “culture war” going on. If so, the right is trouncing the left at this point. Or the religious right is trouncing the secular left, would be better said. In a big way too, I mean, just look at the influence that Wal-mart has had on the entertainment industry alone.
Anyways, that’s off topic a bit but I thought it might be worth mentioning.
I think Bruce has a very valid point here. If the church is to change at all in the next 10, 20, 50 years, what does that say about a divinely wrought organization? Are the directions or commandments of the Lord, through revelation to the prophet, up for evaluation? If God truly knew to wait until the people were ready for blacks to enter the priesthood, what does that say about the polygamy commandment? Surely He would have known about the struggle in that and waited until the people were ready.
We can pick and choose and interpret all we want, as a church. But how far do we change until we are no longer the church of Joseph Smith’s revelations?
spacious maze wrote:I think Bruce has a very valid point here. If the church is to change at all in the next 10, 20, 50 years, what does that say about a divinely wrought organization? Are the directions or commandments of the Lord, through revelation to the prophet, up for evaluation?
I think so, sm. I evaluate these things for myself … why wouldn’t a prophet, for the Church?
And since Joseph claimed it was God Himself that restored the Church through Joseph, why wouldn’t God Himself tell Thomas Monson to shift gears? I think it’s as possible as anything else we’ve seen happen.
spacious maze wrote:If God truly knew to wait until the people were ready for blacks to enter the priesthood, what does that say about the polygamy commandment? Surely He would have known about the struggle in that and waited until the people were ready.
…or maybe just until the prophet was ready… Priesthood for all races in the Church happened over Harold B. Lee and Joseph Fielding Smith’s dead bodies. Polygamy was taken away over John Taylor’s dead body. It happens.
spacious maze wrote:We can pick and choose and interpret all we want, as a church. But how far do we change until we are no longer the church of Joseph Smith’s revelations?
I think the only unchangable thing is the dependence on continuing revelation. Everything else is negotiable, in my view. And I really mean that.HiJolly
I agree, HiJolly. The only truly bottom-line, unchangeable issue for me is the ability to change. Once that is gone, we are just any other creedal Christian denomination. (and, putting on my specualtion hat, I personally think, at this moment, that the overall “doctrinal” process will be a pruning “out” of the Church MUCH more than an adding “into” the Church – while the overall organizational process will be inclusive more than exclusive) spacious maze ยป 12 Aug 2009, 13:56 Quote:I think Bruce has a very valid point here. If the church is to change at all in the next 10, 20, 50 years, what does that say about a divinely wrought organization? Are the directions or commandments of the Lord, through revelation to the prophet, up for evaluation?
The above caused me to think of something that gives me a lot of peace of mind. No action or inaction of man can frustrate the purposes of God.
well said, jeriboy One of my favorite quotes……… .”…the Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done.”
Valoel wrote:
I’m 40 years old and see lots of my generation peers dealing with this change. I’m telling you, the up and coming adults, late teens and 20-30 year old people, my children … They swim in information like fish in water.
I’m almost 50 as long as we are doing true confessions… As part of a BSA Venturing training I attended this spring, we watched a training film and had a very enlightening discussion on generational differences. The bottom line is that not only do the younger generation swim in information like fishes, but they won’t stand for moving slowly. If a meeting is boring, they’ll be texting or leaving without waiting for it to get better.
My oldest is 26. I was in a bishopric when I was 29. (No, I’m not special, the ward was just that desperate.) Within 5 years, we’ll have these “kids” in bishoprics and things will have to change. It bores me to tears to sit in bishopric meeting, then PEC, then Welfare or BYC and discuss the same things over and over. In 5 years we’ll have Elder’s Quorum Presidents and bishop’s counselors that won’t stand for it.
So, while I’m not sure General Conference will change in the next 5 years, I think you are going to see more change than you can believe at the local level. It will probably start with consolidated leadership meetings, then a 2.5 hour meeting block. Along with a quicker pace, most of this generation have grown up with gay friends, in households where the mother makes more money than the father or in fatherless homes. That will spread more tolerance for women and homosexuals.
That spread will be a localize phenomenon in 5 years. The tolerance will be widespread in 10 years. In 20 years, the first of this generation will be approaching 50 — my age! — and will be stake presidents and some even members of the 70. At that point, the tolerance will become more institutionalized. I know it sounds crazy, but I think in 20 years the idea of giving the priesthood to women and homosexuals will not be out of the question.
Within the past 20 years stake presidents have been given more and more local control. As younger and younger stake presidents are called, you’ll see lots of change. Two years ago our stake presidency changed from men who were 63, 60 and 58 to men who were 47, 52 and 50. This has changed the direction of the stake noticeably. The younger men are less concerned about certain things and as they call bishops they are calling younger and more forward thinking bishops. (Although the opposite is true of the high council for some reason.)
Sure, there are old timers who are grumbling about certain changes, but that doesn’t stop the changes from happening.
As a thought experiment, pick someone in your ward who is 30 years old and ask yourself you your ward would change if he were called as bishop of your ward and served for 5 years. Pick someone under 50 and think about how they would manage your stake if called as stake president next week.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.