Abulafia Posted September 14, 2005 Posted September 14, 2005 Thanks 1DC, I didn't sense any arrogance in your thread at all, just a sincere belief in the doctrines of the LDS church.I guess I am like Redman in some ways. I want to believe, but I just can't. It just doesn't fit with my own belief system. Thankyou for not 'beating me with a stick' with your beliefs, I found that so many people did that, but one or two members hold their beliefs with such great love and humility that you can't help listen to them..Abulafia.
randyc Posted September 14, 2005 Posted September 14, 2005 3 - The Gift of the Holy Ghost (related to 1, above).
wiltedlace Posted September 14, 2005 Posted September 14, 2005 I have not read the entirety of this thread (by now it is over 200 replies so please forgive me if that offends anyone), my post is in response only to the topic started by the original author of this thread. I will try not to offer advice, or any unnecessary opinionated statements. Truthfully, if I were to answer "what the true believers think of people like me," I would have to say that I think you're just like everyone else. There isn't anything abnormal about what you have stated. By your posts you seem intelligent and down to earth. I would just assume that you are even like everyone else in the world who later became a convert. At some point, you need answers, and instead of standing on the feet of your parent's testimonies, or your wife's, or anyone else's, you need your own two feet to support you or you flat-out don't want any part of it. To me it makes sense. I've been there too, though I wasn't raised in the church.I want to share with you a parable found in chapter 18 of Luke: "1 AND he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;
randyc Posted September 14, 2005 Posted September 14, 2005 What if you want the church to be true, but you just can't believe anymore?Just do it anyway.
1dc Posted September 15, 2005 Posted September 15, 2005 Thanks 1DC, I didn't sense any arrogance in your thread at all, just a sincere belief in the doctrines of the LDS church.I guess I am like Redman in some ways. I want to believe, but I just can't. It just doesn't fit with my own belief system. Thankyou for not 'beating me with a stick' with your beliefs, I found that so many people did that, but one or two members hold their beliefs with such great love and humility that you can't help listen to them..Abulafia. You're welcome. I'm happy to reply if I've frustrated.About the best I can suggest is for each of us to keep trying to identify what God's belief system is and follow that. In the end, that is what makes Christians of those who believe Jesus Christ as Son of God leads us in following Father's plan.
Kenngo1969 Posted September 15, 2005 Posted September 15, 2005 A woman is generally taught from childhood to submit to the authority of her husband
Kenngo1969 Posted September 15, 2005 Posted September 15, 2005 (I) don't want to hurt her, but again you have to understand my perspective. (I) don't believe (I) am breaking a true covenant to begin with. (I) don't believe for a second, that however the afterlife turns out to be, that she will be given to another man, after a lifetime of love and companionship together. Yeah. Your
Kenngo1969 Posted September 15, 2005 Posted September 15, 2005 (S)urely there should be give and take on both sides.Right. And as long as Redman keeps using noble-sounding terms like
Kenngo1969 Posted September 15, 2005 Posted September 15, 2005 I've read the standard works of the church numerous ... and I've prayed with all my heart to find out the truth. So someone telling me to just read and pray would be preaching to the choir.Right. And how much of that "reading and praying" has been done with your wife and family lately? If I were a betting man, I'd wager "not a lot."
Dill Pickles Posted September 15, 2005 Posted September 15, 2005 Kenngo1969 wrote:I agree with you, TChild2. My life is all about me, what I need and what I want. I am on a personal quest to find what works for me
charity Posted September 15, 2005 Posted September 15, 2005 Dill wrote: "from the Pickle jar: if Mrs Redman's covenant is with Redman, and not with the church, then Mrs Redman is bound to him, not the institution. She is sealed to Redman, Redman is sealed to her, neither is sealed to the church. Redman has not broken his covenant nor his sealing in any way. He retains all blessings, all promises, all ordinances for eternity as long as he does nothing to negate them. Even if he joins another church, even if he never sets foot in a LDS meetinghouse again for the rest of his mortal life, even if he never says another prayer, he retains everything, Kenn. As long as he does nothing to negate those covenants, he is enduring to the end. Mrs Redman has no grounds for complaint. Her husband is in compliance with his covenants, even if he never sets foot in another LDS church or temple again. Once the ordinances are done, they cannot be undone without cause.What is compliant with the covenant? Partaking of the sacrament worthily, paying tithing, serving the Lord, praying. The union must be validated by the Holy Spirit of Promise. You can just wave that off by saying I got myself worhty, went to the temple once, and now it is all over. You must endure to the end. Don't make false promises, Dill.
Tchild2 Posted September 15, 2005 Posted September 15, 2005 Kennongo1969 wrote:I agree with you, TChild2. My life is all about me, what I need and what I want. I am on a personal quest to find what works for me
cacheman Posted September 15, 2005 Posted September 15, 2005 I agree with you, TChild2. My life is all about me, what I need and what I want. I am on a personal quest to find what works for me
Sput Posted September 15, 2005 Posted September 15, 2005 I agree with you, TChild2. My life is all about me, what I need and what I want. I am on a personal quest to find what works for me
Kenngo1969 Posted September 15, 2005 Posted September 15, 2005 Are you saying personal fulfillment is less important than someone else's personal fulfillment?If I had a wife and kids, then heck yes, my personal fulfillment sure as heck would take a back seat to her fulfillment and their fulfillment in that order:
asbestosman Posted September 15, 2005 Posted September 15, 2005 I think your sarcasm is a bit much. You might as easily claim that it was a good thing for Herod to behead John the Baptist because "he promised".Maybe your promises
cacheman Posted September 15, 2005 Posted September 15, 2005 I agree with this in a sense but sometimes it amazes me that ppl actually get excited and brag that they finally "showed their partner the truth" of what they believe. How can that be a loving committed relationship when the believer is constantly bombarded by statements and examples why their faith is wrong. Imagine it on a daily basis wouldnt you get tired and finally deny what you believe just to be left alone. Or by seeing the others example how their life seems easier now that they dont believe. Im sure that effects them into denying their faith. Faith is work and just like when luke asked obi if the dark side was stronger the answer is no its just easier. I think it sad when ppl come here and brag about breakings ones faith. To me thats sad why brag after breaking ones faith? Its like kicking you while you are allready down. The type of bombardment that you mention is unhealthy in a committed relationship. It's not fair to denigrate your spouses beliefs, especially unprovoked. It would be wise though to realize that it can go both ways.As to your assumption that unbelievers life is easier but weaker, that would probably fit into the kind of unhealthy bombardment coming from the believers side. Both sides can provide negative bombardment. It's mutual respect, and a willingness to work together that ultimately overcome life's obstacles including spiritual differences. cacheman
Dill Pickles Posted September 15, 2005 Posted September 15, 2005 Dill wrote: "from the Pickle jar: if Mrs Redman's covenant is with Redman, and not with the church, then Mrs Redman is bound to him, not the institution. She is sealed to Redman, Redman is sealed to her, neither is sealed to the church. Redman has not broken his covenant nor his sealing in any way. He retains all blessings, all promises, all ordinances for eternity as long as he does nothing to negate them. Even if he joins another church, even if he never sets foot in a LDS meetinghouse again for the rest of his mortal life, even if he never says another prayer, he retains everything, Kenn. As long as he does nothing to negate those covenants, he is enduring to the end. Mrs Redman has no grounds for complaint. Her husband is in compliance with his covenants, even if he never sets foot in another LDS church or temple again. Once the ordinances are done, they cannot be undone without cause.What is compliant with the covenant? Partaking of the sacrament worthily, paying tithing, serving the Lord, praying. The union must be validated by the Holy Spirit of Promise. You can just wave that off by saying I got myself worhty, went to the temple once, and now it is all over. You must endure to the end. Don't make false promises, Dill. from the Pickle jar: perhaps you and I have different ideas of what enduring to the end means, charity. You're describing the LDS ideal. I'm describing the LDS minimum. All of Redman's blessings are intact, even if he never takes the sacrament again, never prays again, never sets foot in a church house again, as long as he does nothing to negatively impact his sealing, like commit adultery or murder. That is what God's side of the promise is. As long as Redman is true and faithful to the promises he made at his sealing, he is in compliance and entitled to all his blessings at the Judgment Bar. At no point in his sealing is he required to promise to attend church, to partake of the sacrament, to pray, to fast, etc. He promises to remain true and faithful to his wife, and she promises to remain true and faithful to him. They are thus sealed together for as long as they keep the covenants they made. Even if they get divorced, the sealing is intact until circumstances dictate that it be cancelled. As an aside, it's entirely possible to serve the Lord without ever attending another sacrament meeting. It's entirely possible to remain faithful to temple covenants without ever partaking of the sacrament again. People do it all the time. Their blessings are not nullified unless they commit a sanctionable sin.
Sput Posted September 15, 2005 Posted September 15, 2005 Dill wrote: "from the Pickle jar: if Mrs Redman's covenant is with Redman, and not with the church, then Mrs Redman is bound to him, not the institution. She is sealed to Redman, Redman is sealed to her, neither is sealed to the church. Redman has not broken his covenant nor his sealing in any way. He retains all blessings, all promises, all ordinances for eternity as long as he does nothing to negate them. Even if he joins another church, even if he never sets foot in a LDS meetinghouse again for the rest of his mortal life, even if he never says another prayer, he retains everything, Kenn. As long as he does nothing to negate those covenants, he is enduring to the end. Mrs Redman has no grounds for complaint. Her husband is in compliance with his covenants, even if he never sets foot in another LDS church or temple again. Once the ordinances are done, they cannot be undone without cause.What is compliant with the covenant? Partaking of the sacrament worthily, paying tithing, serving the Lord, praying. The union must be validated by the Holy Spirit of Promise. You can just wave that off by saying I got myself worhty, went to the temple once, and now it is all over. You must endure to the end. Don't make false promises, Dill. from the Pickle jar: perhaps you and I have different ideas of what enduring to the end means, charity. You're describing the LDS ideal. I'm describing the LDS minimum. All of Redman's blessings are intact, even if he never takes the sacrament again, never prays again, never sets foot in a church house again, as long as he does nothing to negatively impact his sealing, like commit adultery or murder. That is what God's side of the promise is. As long as Redman is true and faithful to the promises he made at his sealing, he is in compliance and entitled to all his blessings at the Judgment Bar. At no point in his sealing is he required to promise to attend church, to partake of the sacrament, to pray, to fast, etc. He promises to remain true and faithful to his wife, and she promises to remain true and faithful to him. They are thus sealed together for as long as they keep the covenants they made. Even if they get divorced, the sealing is intact until circumstances dictate that it be cancelled. As an aside, it's entirely possible to serve the Lord without ever attending another sacrament meeting. It's entirely possible to remain faithful to temple covenants without ever partaking of the sacrament again. People do it all the time. Their blessings are not nullified unless they commit a sanctionable sin. What about the building of zion?
Dill Pickles Posted September 15, 2005 Posted September 15, 2005 Are you saying personal fulfillment is less important than someone else's personal fulfillment?If I had a wife and kids, then heck yes, my personal fulfillment sure as heck would take a back seat to her fulfillment and their fulfillment in that order:
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.