Jump to content

Maidservant

Members
  • Content Count

    1,778
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,434 Excellent

About Maidservant

  • Rank
    Separates Water & Dry Land
  • Birthday 03/04/1971

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Arizona

Recent Profile Visitors

2,665 profile views
  1. We love the Good Place at this house. Also try CBS's God Friended Me.
  2. I have been studying and pondering the "come unto thee" in 1 Ne 1:14, and there Nephi (really, Lehi) terms the difference between 'perishing' and 'not perishing', and 'perishing' is associated with (if not strictly defined by) abominations (undefined), the sword, and captivity. The Lord God Almighty is described as having mercy, power, and goodness--and I can see that (in this passage) mercy is the antidote for captivity, power is the antidote for the sword, and goodness is the antidote for abomination. Not even sure if I'm going to conclude what it all means yet, but it has been a powerful exploration for me. I don't know if I've thought enough about either 'come unto me' or 'rest' to know whether I have entered, but I do think it is a real time experience, and not based in the afterlife per se. I do know that I am a much more peaceful person now and more comfortable in my own body, the older I get while applying life's principles I've learned. I love myself instead of hating myself (most of the time). Any time I would do the latter, I leave rest. Anytime I am willing to do the former, I enter a sense of peace and safety. Any time I follow the Savior's pattern for meeting the challenges and threats of the world, and meeting my own weakness, is when I am more at peace.
  3. In one framing, yes. But then we would have to talk about Atonement theory (-ies). And honestly, we would have to unpack 'Jesus Christ' or if the ram is an aspect or principle rather than a person. Edited: And/or the Christ path, which we are all walking. On and on. I mean, we don't have to do anything, lol, but it's just not a yes or no question.
  4. We are the Binding of Isaac. It's us. We have been bound on the altar that is earth.
  5. Meerkat, this is really beautiful. Thank you.
  6. “I, Nephi, will show unto you that the tender mercies of the Lord are over all those whom he hath chosen, because of their faith, to make them mighty even unto the power of deliverance.” (1 Ne 1:20) The concept of being 'chosen' is a bit tricky, I think. My patriarchal blessing says that I am chosen, and was before I came here. So there was a time I put a lot of study into that. Unfortunately I can't remember most of the conclusions I drew from all the scriptures; it does speak of being a vessel (such as Mary, the mother of Jesus, being a chosen vessel). But the principle of 'vessel' only raises more questions which I don't want to take the time for at this point. I do know that it is not a prize. In fact, The Book of Mormon gives some criticism to those who think such. I point you to the tradition of the Zoramites which was based heavily on their chosenness as something special and separate and granted arbitrarily. Alma 31:16-18 At this time in my life, I find the appellation of 'chosen' to be slightly useless. Even if one is chosen, it's not helpful if that one doesn't also choose (to serve Christ). And if one is not, to begin with, chosen per se, they may become so by choosing (to serve Christ). Nevertheless, I think Nephi's engagement with the idea and reality of 'chosenness' is instructive. First of all, one is chosen because of their faith. *** Now, a treatise on faith could take pages upon pages. Let me provide a brief working definition for the moment. You can study further on your own if you need to flesh this out. Faith is not 'agreement of what is correct' nor 'level of heart fervency'. Rather, faith is the application of principle, namely Christ principles. Faith is from the seed to the fruit—and the work, the living, that takes place to obtain that fruit. Faith is creation. Faith is to live (according to given principles). Faith is to make choices. Faith is strong and dynamic and exhausting. When one applies a given principle(s), through whatever hazard of life there may be, this is faith and that one will have the fruit of that faith if one endures through the completion of the faith process. Thus we see that when Nephi says one is chosen because of their faith, what he is really saying is that we choose ourselves. We say, This is who I am and This is what I will do. Perhaps Nephi's understanding was influenced by the words of Isaiah (which he shares later in his book): “For, behold, I have refined thee. I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction.” (1 Ne 20:10, Isaiah 48:10) Nephi begins his record in verse 1 of chapter 1: “having seen many afflictions in the course of my days”. (And keep in mind, that Nephi is crafting this narrative many years after it took place, after much time of reflecting upon it, I'm sure.) And then the verse 20 we are learning from is very plain: “because of their faith, to make them mighty even unto the power of deliverance.” In other words, we deliver ourselves. The location of the power (“mighty”) is in ourselves, because of the process of faith that we consciously choose and submit ourselves to. The tender mercies of YHWH are part of the equation. These tender mercies emerge into the story. But it is a story of faith that a person chose and picked up and endured in for themselves, but not by themselves (because the mercy of YHWH is always there to be drawn upon). And I think the presentation that Nephi is giving, while it seems to simply be a history of his family, is really more than that. His presentation uses the story of his family; but it's purpose is really to be very specific about what faith is and how you go through it in order to experience deliverance as a result of that faith. *** The Book of Mormon is a companion to the Bible, but one of the things it does is to subtly criticize the Bible (for the purpose of correcting errors). The idea of chosen-ness I think is one of those criticism/corrections. The Bene Israel did not (and perhaps still do not) understand the nature of their chosen-ness, and at times have run to the Zoramite version. (And this is human nature, not just a problem of Judaism.) Nephi's engagement with 'chosen-ness' makes sure and let us know it is a function of real time faith and living and the choices WE make—not God sprinkling pixie dust on a bloodline (or an organization, for that matter). = = = = = = = = = = = = = This is the second mini-essay I wrote regarding the first chapter of Nephi. What have you learned regarding chosenness, how have you engaged with it (if at all)? Also would love if anyone has insights on how the ancient ideas of chosenness came about and were thought about. Riff on anything . . .
  7. And . . . How San Francisco broke America's heart
  8. Yes. Aikido would simply be a beginning (or one kind of beginning; it's simply a possible technique--and it is not only to learn how to throw, but to learn how to be thrown and use the energy one saved from fighting to cause the person to pass by you without either receiving harm--it's a mental and spiritual understanding not only a physical ability; in other words, the opponent fails under the power of their own energy). If everyone knows limit-but-not harm (whatever the technique), thirst for bloodshed and oppression would be non-existent. It's true that when one trains oneself to meet those who insist upon framing one as an enemy or victim and treating one as such, there is no guarantee of who would come in one's path--it might be one less strong and stamina-ed, less trained, less aware, less knowledgeable; or it might be one stronger and better trained which might indeed afford one defeat, or at least at the time. There is no perfection of guarantee. One limits as one is able; and if not, the best thing they can do in the situation which might be to kill and maim, submit, run away, whatever seems best or even possible in the given situation. If everyone learns martial arts for the purpose of harming, then there's no point and it doesn't fulfill what I'm talking about.
  9. Yes. Yes. And we don't have these limit-but-not-harm teachings (i.e. body and/or mind techniques) generally in our culture and we certainly don't bring our children up learning them. (By the way, there is a difference between hurt and harm in my understanding.) It's more difficult because we don't know what they are and we haven't learned them. If we knew what they were (and they do exist on the planet; beginning with Aikido) and chose to learn them, there would definitely be effort involved. Agreed. And it can only be come to by persuasion in the end. I like 3 Nephi 5:4.
  10. I agree (or at least that's the theoretical idea behind it). I'm not interested in limited violence that one entity gets to do. I think Kingpin already got the job (my word for Satan). Doesn't mean I'm a fan of either. That's not violence. Although you might be surprised of what the options are, to limit someone without harming them in return. To allow someone to harm you is also violence. To limit someone from harming you blesses both you and them.
  11. No human being should serve in a military. To be clear, I am not advocating disobedience necessarily. I am advocating laying the groundwork for a completely different worldview sans military. I'd like to think not. Let's see what my choices are when that is before me. I already don't support military worldviews. To humanity. Our brothers and sisters. Moses Chapter 7 28 And it came to pass that the God of heaven looked upon the residue of the people, and he wept; and Enoch bore record of it, saying: How is it that the heavens weep, and shed forth their tears as the rain upon the mountains? 29 And Enoch said unto the Lord: How is it that thou canst weep, seeing thou art holy, and from all eternity to all eternity? [. . .] 31 And thou hast taken Zion to thine own bosom, from all thy creations, from all eternity to all eternity; and naught but peace, justice, and truth is the habitation of thy throne; and mercy shall go before thy face and have no end; how is it thou canst weep? 32 The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency; 33 And unto thy brethren have I said, and also given commandment, that they should love one another, and that they should choose me, their Father; but behold, they are without affection, and they hate their own blood; Ah. You see why I'm an anarchist. A state can only exist by virtue of explicit or implicit violence, thus it's foundations are always anti-God. I can't play that game, even if it's the only one in town right now. All violence is automatically tyranny. (Any one who claims to be an anarchist and indulges in violence is not an anarchist, but a tyrant.)
  12. Was it though? It was behind Zion, but was it behind American and especially wider church culture? Real question. I haven't studied that moment in history myself. I mean, were black Southern Baptist pastors leading white congregations in the late 70s? I think the entertainment industry may have been leading the pack regarding inclusion. Have you had a chance to read and ponder the blessings given to each of the twelve tribes, located somewhere in the OT, not sure where, but likely Genesis?
  13. Yes, and probably these very same passages are what has yielded my point of view, but I hear you. Even delving into 1 Nephi recently I was simply brought short by Nephi's insistence of speaking of the Jews--when after all, he himself is not a Jew, if referring to bloodline. So it causes me to ask, 'what does he mean'? Because the Book of Mormon has a HUGE House of Israel theme. Well, if you are so inclined, you can PM me, I love insights of all kinds, even if I don't settle on them myself, they still might open something up for me. (No worries if not.) I'm all about ludicrous 🙂. You could hardly out-ludicrous me, now could you? 😜 Ha ha.
  14. The more I read the scriptures, in one, the more the understanding is emerging for me that the House of Israel has nothing, if anything, to do with bloodline. It represents a stage of progression, mainly for communities (but necessarily then also for individuals as they would be prepared to participate in the community). As such, 'the House of Israel' is a level of repentance beyond certain worldviews and practices; as well as a level of repentance and light that has not yet been reached (i.e. there are progressions beyond 'the House of Israel'; and I would submit that in this day and age we must very quickly emerge from the House of Israel structure or we will not be prepared for Zion). While Jesus was situated in a Jewish/Greek infused/Roman state milieu (not House of Israel, because the other tribes were already gone by then), and may very well have been answering his fellows within that story, the story of covenant begins far previous to the House of Israel, thus encompasses all the peoples of the world. That Jacob/Israel and then eventually Moses were called was mainly to show a clear covenant template for everyone, not to be the only ones with the template or who it was for--because covenant never was. The first we know of covenant starts with Adam and persists to our day. House of Israel is only helpful to the degree it shows that everlasting covenant, not as something unique to a bloodline.
×
×
  • Create New...