Jump to content

echelon

Members
  • Posts

    51
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

echelon's Achievements

Contributor

Contributor (5/14)

  • Dedicated Rare
  • Reacting Well Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Conversation Starter

Recent Badges

12

Reputation

  1. Thanks for making that distinction. I went back to the chapter to understand the context and found more to it: 24 And thus saith the Lord: ... whereof they shall be judged, every man according to his works, whether they be good, or whether they be evil. 25 And if they be evil they are consigned to an awful view of their own guilt and abominations, which doth cause them to shrink from the presence of the Lord... In that light now it looks to me that while judged of our works, it is still up to us what we do with that consigned view after. Mosiah says that people will feel so bad that they will shrink away (and likely give up hope), though it does not exclude the possibility of alternatively approaching God and applying the atonement to continue with our progression.
  2. When looking for scriptures to find out why Talmage (or anyone) would believe in the finality of assigned kingdoms I found this in Mosiah 3 talking about judgement day: 25. And if they be evil they are consigned to an awful view of their own guilt and abominations, which doth cause them to shrink from the presence of the Lord into a state of misery and endless torment, from whence they can no more return; therefore they have drunk damnation to their own souls. 26 Therefore, they have drunk out of the cup of the wrath of God, which justice could no more deny unto them than it could deny that Adam should fall because of his partaking of the forbidden fruit; therefore, mercy could have claim on them no more forever. Shrinking from the presence of God (Celestial Kingdom) from whence there is no return tells me there is no progression beyond entrance into the celestial kingdom, and even more so by the withholding of the atonement from them forever onwards. (suggesting a time limit on the availability of the atonement) I don't like it but 'no more return' and forever withholding mercy after judgement seems final to me, at least into the celestial kingdom. Yet D&C 76:88 says those in the telestial kingdom who receive of the ministering of angels 'shall be heirs of salvation', so I don't know what to believe as the two sources seem to conflict with each other.
  3. Yes. Is that a problem, in your view? As we can see from the OP, it is. Holland is saying that if the Church cannot teach it's doctrine in BYU in a way that is acceptable to the secular world, the school will have to risk it's status among other institutions.
  4. I'm not sure why Holland felt like BYU has to single itself out when the issues he raised are not with the school itself but with the Church, as though if Church is going to suffer, he's going to take BYU down with it. Personally I find BYU as progressive and in step with the issues facing all educational institutions and prefer it continues with how it is operating today. If it comes down to losing its accreditation, the Church will do more good for mankind by embracing secular academia and offering an education that while available to all, gives its members a reasonable chance to provide and to be influential in the field they choose to excel in.
  5. I brought up hotels because that's the strictly business side of the church which does not concern itself with the affairs of the people who work or stay there. BYU on the other hand likes to have one foot in the church and the other in the secular/business world, imposing religious beliefs on one side and being lenient with other beliefs (e.g. word of wisdom) on the other. Keep going down that road and one will eventually have to give way to the other. As a school it will be far more successful as a business than as a church.
  6. BYU is a business, not the church itself and as such it's not reasonable to impose it's beliefs on the school as it does its own members. No different than the hotels it owns.
  7. I'm not sure I understand the risk to professional affiliations and certifications. Because I don't see any discrimination on the issue in the school itself, is it solely because of BYU's association with the church that puts the school's professional affiliations and certifications risk?
  8. Having been taught that there are substances which can take away from our spirituality, I often think it reasonable that there would also be substances to increase spirituality. I just never had the courage to experiment on it.
  9. I think it goes all the way back to Adam and Eve when after a few bouts of food poisonings in the mortal world, finally just pleaded with God to bless it, not knowing what is edible and having to learn from trial and error.
  10. I don't think race is the right word to describe those who have potential to be gods. If a god can be appointed an angel and vice versa, it seems to me that godhood is a title bestowed by God the father giving you all the privilege's that come with that title. (like a feudal system among gods) This verse, also from section 132, may be an oversimplification but effectively sums up what it takes to be a god. Speaking of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: "and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods." v37 That's it...perfect obedience = exaltation = godhood. The not so simple part is, that it is in the commandments we are given and must obey that test and mold us according to God's desire into someone who is worthy and capable of living as a 'god'.
  11. I understand it's not reasonable to hold people accountable for 'Church' commitments they did not make. What I don't understand is a Church that not only tempts others to do exactly what it clearly disapproves of from its own members, but also enables them to do so by making it accessible. Perhaps the doctrine being followed is what we learn from the Book of Mormon where it is okay to poison a Lamanite, but not a Nephite (Alma 55:30-32), and that is it is okay to benefit from the suffering of others. In this case we don't get to drink the 'safe' wine, but rather profit from it.
  12. This thread has been a real eye opener for me as to how the church conducts its business and where the thoughts of the members of this board are on it. I still struggle with determining what the lesson or doctrine is (if any) that I am to learn from the church's example in offering goods and services on church property to the general public and at the same time prohibit their own members to partake of it. What is the doctrine they follow that guides their decision from 'selling alcohol is okay, maybe a few VLT's, but we will put our foot down on strip club' on church owned property? (assuming they would put their foot down on a strip club) I would like to know so that I can apply it in my relationships with friends and business partners which I think will certainly improve if I start offering them drinks or lottery tickets, working on Sundays, and an occasional joint. It seems like if the church caters to public needs, I should do the same for my friends so that comfort and enjoyment can be maintained for all without imposing my beliefs on them. In other words, The church's example in the OP is teaching me that I'm allowed to offer things to other people I wouldn't do myself if I know it is something they want...(that would go over well with my kids!) I don't think that any doctrine is being followed by the church in what it allows within its business establishments but rather what is legal and socially acceptable, keeping one foot in Zion (the church) and the other in Babylon (its business end).
  13. What would your thoughts be about God the Father knowing what our pain feels like and how did he get that knowledge? During Christ's atonement (Time not being a factor)? or does He already know from His atoning sacrifice back when He was the savior of His civilization which would then assume that there are no new ways ever to sin in the many plans of salvations and saviors that come afterward.
  14. I wonder then, when that time comes when Christ inherits His people from God the Father and reigns supreme, whether our prayers will be directed to Him in place of God the Father. Until then, while the church bears His name, it sounds like all decisions regarding its affairs require final approval by Father. Jesus may have recommended President Nelson as the prophet or he could also have been the Father's choice, either way the Father has final say to approve his calling after listening to the prayers of earthly servants and godly council members. This also goes for how the bishop and ward presidencies fill callings.
  15. I'm interested in reading that, do you recall the subject so I can look it up? It is odd to me that after reading Matthew 6:9 ("After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name") and 3 Nephi 18:19 (“Ye must always pray unto the Father in my name”) that people would envision praying to Jesus or someone other than to whom the prayer is addressed. Though I'm not entirely surprised by it either because of a long time gripe I have with how we are instructed to perform baby blessings where they first address the Father, and then turn their attention to the baby: Then the one acting as voice: 1. Addresses Heavenly Father as in prayer. 2. States that the blessing is being performed by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood. 3. Gives the child a name. 4. Addresses the child. 5. Gives a blessing to the child as guided by the Spirit. 6. Closes in the name of Jesus Christ. Perhaps our prayers are like that, address the Father and then address Jesus for instruction and decisions about His church and close in Jesus' name.
×
×
  • Create New...