Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rivers

Worthy

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Exactly, seems to me, the rest of Christianity get baptised no matter what, just so they can revel in Jesus' sacrifice and turn their lives over to Him. 

Well, they get wet...and it's a good thing as far as it goes if it puts them on the path towards the Savior.

Share this post


Link to post

Worthy = obedience to church leaders.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

Worthy = obedience to church leaders.

Pretty much, depending on which church leaders you have in mind.  Or more to the point, depending on what church leaders have said and whether or not what they said was in harmony with what our Lord (our ultimate church leader) would want us to say.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

IMO- the term worthy or worthiness in a religious context seems to suggest that there are things a person can do to earn rights and privileges, such as going to the temple. The term leans heavily on the works part of the faith/works dichotomy. I think that's what many people are opposed to. By being deemed "unworthy" to do something a person is literally being told they have not done enough and are therefore worth less than those who have done more. It doesn't mean they are "worthless" but it does mean they are "worth less" at that point in time.

They are less worthy, but not worth less.  That's an important distinction, especially when we teach this concept to our youth.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

They are less worthy, but not worth less.  That's an important distinction, especially when we teach this concept to our youth.

When teaching youth about the worth of souls I think it's important to point out that our worth is relative to our potential to become like our Father in heaven... who is as good as we can possibly get.

If we're not that good (yet?) the worth of our soul may still be worth as much in potential but we actually have to reach our potential for our worth to be as much as it can be.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

They are less worthy, but not worth less.  That's an important distinction, especially when we teach this concept to our youth.

I don't see a distinction. Remember the actual definition of "worthy" that was posted previously.

I do like the distinction someone made earlier between Worth and value. I think that is the distinction you're really making here. In any case, discussion of worth and worthiness will always be fraught because humans are making the judgements of worthiness. Whether they have an official calling to declare worthiness or not, they are still human and prone to error, so putting too much stock in a person's judgement of worthiness is a problem. Especially when those judgements can literally damn a person from progress and participation in the church as if it is the same thing as damning the progress of the person in relationship with God.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Rivers said:

But I really don’t think being worthy has anything to do with having worth

Except perhaps the things we pursue to be worthy have spiritual worth/value for us.

But the usual meaning attached to "worth" is often problematic.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Rivers said:

What exactly does the church mean by the use of the word  “worthy?” .......................

LDS Hymnal #67 (Rev 5:9-13)

Glory to God on high!
Let heav'n and earth reply.
Praise ye his name.
His love and grace adore,
Who all our sorrows bore.
Sing aloud evermore:
Worthy the Lamb!

Jesus, our Lord and God,
Bore sin's tremendous load.
Praise ye his name.
Tell what his arm has done,
What spoils from death he won.
Sing his great name alone:
Worthy the Lamb!

Let all the hosts above
Join in one song of love,
Praising his name.
To him ascribed be
Honor and majesty
Thru all eternity:
Worthy the Lamb!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, 2BizE said:

Worthy = obedience to church leaders.

No, it isn't.  Only inasmuch as acceptance of priesthood authority is required to participate in an ordinance.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

No, it isn't.  Only inasmuch as acceptance of priesthood authority is required to participate in an ordinance.

Except that obedience (sustaining) to church leaders is an actual question in the TR interview and all of the questions asked depend upon a person accepting the decision of church leaders asking them those questions and deciding worthiness based upon those answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

Except that obedience (sustaining) to church leaders is an actual question in the TR interview and all of the questions asked depend upon a person accepting the decision of church leaders asking them those questions and deciding worthiness based upon those answers.

I guess I sustain differently than others.  Sustain and obey have no connection.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

How 'bout these definitions:  Of mind or character: Having a high moral standard.  Of actions, etc.: Adequate or suitable in respect of moral excellence or noble aims. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Saw this on reddit. It fits in nicely on this thread, but sad at the same time. 

uf5977wru8r31.jpg

The secret is to kick your back legs, catch the carrot on the rebound in your teeth, and hold on so you can chew.

I have had the worthiness discussion before and people act like meeting the temple recommend questions is impossible. It is not that hard. It is just the people who want to relax and think they are “good enough” to rest and stop improving that whine the most about worthiness. I am “good enough” to be exalted right now but I am not “good enough” to stop improving. God is going to keep kicking me around to purify me until I do die and then I will probably need some kicks in the Spirit World. Such is the fate of a fallen immortal. Just gotta deal with it until one day I am full of grace and truth and than.....PARTY!!!!!!!!,

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Except that obedience (sustaining) to church leaders is an actual question in the TR interview and all of the questions asked depend upon a person accepting the decision of church leaders asking them those questions and deciding worthiness based upon those answers.

Sustaining is accepting and supporting.  Not blind obedience.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Rivers said:

 

 

What exactly does the church mean by the use of the word  “worthy?” 

It seems like a lot of people equate the word “worthy” with having worth.   Thus I hear some complain that we need to stop using the word in reference to meeting qualifications to enter the temple.  But I really don’t think being worthy has anything to do with having worth.  I had never made that kind of connection.   Do we need to find a better word to use than “worthy?”

 

The "worthy" word makes me squirm sometimes when they ask it. 
How about this?
"Do you feel you are prepared and qualify to participate in temple ordinances?"

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Rivers said:

What exactly does the church mean by the use of the word  “worthy?” 

I always thought Colossians 1:10 summed it up quite well:  "That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God".   It is to stand approved in the sight of God.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Rivers said:

Sustaining is accepting and supporting.  Not blind obedience.

I don't think leaders would consider it "blind" obedience.

But I reject the idea that obedience to leaders isn't expected.

For example, if a bishop were to ask me to clean the building on a Saturday and I simply told him "no", I think he would take exception with that. Or if the SP asked me to remove a Facebook post support SSM, and I refused, I don't think he would consider me to be sustaining him. Etc. etc.  Leaders ask things of members all the time. Some are very reasonable requests. Some aren't as reasonable. Some are suggestions or counsel, some are expectations. But when a leader expects me to do what he says, then obedience is expected. I can supply many real-life examples if needed, but I'm hoping people here can recognize from personal experience that there is often an expectation of obedience,

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think leaders would consider it "blind" obedience.

But I reject the idea that obedience to leaders isn't expected.

For example, if a bishop were to ask me to clean the building on a Saturday and I simply told him "no", I think he would take exception with that. Or if the SP asked me to remove a Facebook post support SSM, and I refused, I don't think he would consider me to be sustaining him. Etc. etc.  Leaders ask things of members all the time. Some are very reasonable requests. Some aren't as reasonable. Some are suggestions or counsel, some are expectations. But when a leader expects me to do what he says, then obedience is expected. I can supply many real-life examples if needed, but I'm hoping people here can recognize from personal experience that there is often an expectation of obedience,

 

Members are not asked to be obedient to Church leaders.  Merely to accept them as a leader and try to support them somehow.

So if my bishop were to ask me to clean the ward building on a particular Saturday and I already had other plans for that day, plans that I felt were more important than cleaning the building on that day, I would still be showing support and a desire to sustain him as a leader if I said that while I support him in his desire to clean the building I have other plans for that coming Saturday and asking for another day to clean the building, instead.  That would show that I am willing to work with him and his goals but that I have things I need to do in my own life too.  And I suspect like most good bishops he would have no problem with that and not insist that no I absolutely must obey him and do it on that Saturday.

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/8/2019 at 5:43 PM, CV75 said:

I think in practice it is supposed to mean "suitability," conveying "preparedness". This may be a older use of the word, but I think if you draw upon several reputable dictionaries it is still worthy.

ding ding ding! 

Words change in meaning over time, and we would be surprised about some words we use now to mean one thing meant close to the opposite a few hundred years ago.  Also, between different branches of English.  

"Homely" for example:

In the United States, homely usually suggests absence of natural beauty: an unattractive person almost homely enough to be called ugly. In England, the word suggests a wholesome simplicity without artificial refinement or elegance; since it characterizes that which is comfortable and attractive, it is equivalent to homey : a homely cottage.

And don't get me started about pants.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

ding ding ding! 

Words change in meaning over time, and we would be surprised about some words we use now to mean one thing meant close to the opposite a few hundred years ago.  Also, between different branches of English.  

"Homely" for example:

In the United States, homely usually suggests absence of natural beauty: an unattractive person almost homely enough to be called ugly. In England, the word suggests a wholesome simplicity without artificial refinement or elegance; since it characterizes that which is comfortable and attractive, it is equivalent to homey : a homely cottage.

And don't get me started about pants.

Oh go ahead with the pants!

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Oh go ahead with the pants!

pants means underpants in British English. Don't even get me started on fanny-packs.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, etana said:

pants means underpants in British English. Don't even get me started on fanny-packs.

I had a hunch to just google that one myself... LOL

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, etana said:

pants means underpants in British English. Don't even get me started on fanny-packs.

That would be far worse than pants! :D 

Just Google it.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...