What if you want the church to be true,

[1dc]

and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

I would agree, charity, except that the statement above doesn't sound much like trying to "acquire a ticket."

Does to me . . living life for oneself instead of God doesn't sound much like trying to "aquire a ticket"

[ave maria]

and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

I would agree, charity, except that the statement above doesn't sound much like trying to "acquire a ticket."

Does to me . . living life for oneself instead of God doesn't sound much like trying to "aquire a ticket"

Huh?

I think you are setting up a false dichotomy.

"Losing one's life" tends to preclude pursuit of a ticket.

[1dc]

To condemn Redman to hell because from our myopic perspective he is not enduring to the end is . . .

Did she say that? Or did you judge that she said that? More importantly, what did she mean and did you ask or complain?

Whatever was said, I would infer that her intent was about a current path, not a final judgement. To infer otherwise might assume Charity is not a reasonably faithful LDS member who understands the difference between a potential course deviation and God's final judgement. Which IMO seems to lean toward the position you are arguing against . . . to which I can only ask why?

PS - If I am on the wrong course with this post, *please* help me back onto the correct path. IMO that is what I hope we may do for each other both here and anywhere else we all may meet. It seems I've heard a GA suggest that is what we should do for each other.

[1dc]

and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

I would agree, charity, except that the statement above doesn't sound much like trying to "acquire a ticket."

Does to me . . living life for oneself instead of God doesn't sound much like trying to "aquire a ticket"

Huh?

I think you are setting up a false dichotomy.

"Losing one's life" tends to preclude pursuit of a ticket.

Not at all . . one can lose one's life (figuratively) by using free agency to choose to follow God instead of the world . . and find eternal life (not figuratively).

[ave maria]

and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

I would agree, charity, except that the statement above doesn't sound much like trying to "acquire a ticket."

Does to me . . living life for oneself instead of God doesn't sound much like trying to "aquire a ticket"

Huh?

I think you are setting up a false dichotomy.

"Losing one's life" tends to preclude pursuit of a ticket.

Not at all . . one can lose one's life (figuratively) by using free agency to choose to follow God instead of the world . . and find eternal life (not figuratively).

I think we're talking about two different things.

Now which of those two Jesus was discussing is another matter.

[charity]

Ave, Please don't perseverate on an attempt to give a concrete example of something that is obviously more abstract. I was speaking to the issue of "being true to self" as the opposite of what God wants us to be. He wants us to lose ourselves in His service.

And thanks 1dc. I feel like I am hitting a brick wall with Dill Pickle. We did this once before, where I felt like he tried to twist everything I was saying to mean something that I did not. I couldn't understand why he would do that then, and I don't know why he would do it now, either.

I was speaking to the current path, as you said. I was trying to warn of the false teaching that it really doesn't matter what we do. 2 Ne. 28: 8 And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God

[ave maria]

Ave, Please don't perseverate on an attempt to give a concrete example of something that is obviously more abstract. I was speaking to the issue of "being true to self" as the opposite of what God wants us to be.

Huh?

Again, that's another false dichotomy.

He wants us to lose ourselves in His service.

I sense another underlying topic here which is entirely tangential, but relevant, and that is that Mormonism in essence revolves around something of a personal marathon to a finish line, and is, in that sense, very "self-" oriented.

I distinguish this from some other faith traditions where there is less emphasis on "self" as contrasted to the "whole."

Well, enough athletic imagery already on this board at the moment. Another thread, another time.

[ave maria]

I was speaking to the issue of "being true to self" as the opposite of what God wants us to be.

I can't even fathom a God who would want us to be anything but true to ourselves. He created us entirely to be that way, and that would be the fulfillment of our creation.

Perhaps you mean something else by the expression.

[charity]

Ave, maybe you and I do mean two different things. In all the instances where I see people talk about being "true to themselves" what they mean is that they are going to do something that is extremely selfish. Their justification is that they are "being true to themselves." I see the self they are talking about more like Freud's id. Selfish, wanting what it wants, no matter who is hurt.

[ave maria]

Ave, maybe you and I do mean two different things. In all the instances where I see people talk about being "true to themselves" what they mean is that they are going to do something that is extremely selfish. Their justification is that they are "being true to themselves." I see the self they are talking about more like Freud's id. Selfish, wanting what it wants, no matter who is hurt.

Hmmm. . .

Yes, well teenagers have premarital sex under the guise that it is "love," too, but that doesn't mean that all love leads to premarital sex.

I take the expression "true to one's self" in the sense that Polonius gave his famous advice to his son, Laertes, "This above all, to thine own self be true. And it must follow, as night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man."

Integrity is a central pillar to character; in my own view, one cannot be a person of faith or any strength of character without it.

[charity]

It looks like you are relating the self more to the ego or superego. I agree about integrity being one of the most supreme of good qualities. I always thought of myself as an optimist. But in this, I see you being an optimist, that being true will result in the higher good. Then I must be the pessimist, seing the focus on self to lead to selfishness.

[ave maria]

It looks like you are relating the self more to the ego or superego. I agree about integrity being one of the most supreme of good qualities. I always thought of myself as an optimist. But in this, I see you being an optimist, that being true will result in the higher good. Then I must be the pessimist, seing the focus on self to lead to selfishness.

Why do I suddenly feel like I'm stuck in a Hermann Hesse novel?

I seem to recall Robert Pirsig musing on slicing a pie (or was it a cake? It's been a while since I read Zen/Motorcycle) down the middle, and splitting it neatly. On the one side was romanticism, for example, and on the other side was classicism. It's a fascinating image.

Narcissus on one side of the pie; Goldmund on the other.

Or, in this case, charity on one side; ave maria on the other.

Optimism. Pessimism.

I'd be curious to see you explore, in another thread. . .do you perceive Jesus Christ to be/have been an optimist? Or a pessimist? And why?

Satan/Lucifer? An optimist? Or a pessimist? And why?

[Dill Pickles]

from the Pickle jar: no wonder refrigerators need cleaning every now and then. Too many leftovers pushed into all the nooks and crannies.

There's already been more than a few discussions on this thread, all tantalisingly brief:

1. is one's personal integrity more or less important than another's personal happiness, in a marriage?

2. is being true to self (personal integrity) God's wish for his children, or does he want his children to lose their true self in Him?

3. does "going inactive" constitute breaking the marriage covenant?

4. is the covenant in a sealing between the couple and God or between the couple and the LDS church or only between themselves?

5. are eternal blessings lost, even temporarily, if a person goes inactive?

6. what exactly do we mean when we say "eternal blessing"?

7. is it fair or realistic for one spouse to assume the other spouse will never change?

8. what constitutes enduring to the end?

9. Are the Parable of the Lost Sheep and the Parable of the Prodigal Son at odds with "enduring to the end"?

10. if ordinances have not been formally revoked, are the blessings still valid?

Anything else?

[juliann]

Ave, maybe you and I do mean two different things. In all the instances where I see people talk about being "true to themselves" what they mean is that they are going to do something that is extremely selfish. Their justification is that they are "being true to themselves." I see the self they are talking about more like Freud's id. Selfish, wanting what it wants, no matter who is hurt.

Of course that is what it means in our society. It is one of those new agey kind of catch-all phrases. I find it resoundingly ironic that anyone who stands behind a theory of original sin and the nature of man would want to be "true" to themselves.

[ave maria]

I find it resoundingly ironic that anyone who stands behind a theory of original sin and the nature of man would want to be "true" to themselves.

You're advocating being false?

[ave maria]

from the Pickle jar: no wonder refrigerators need cleaning every now and then. Too many leftovers pushed into all the nooks and crannies.

There's already been more than a few discussions on this thread, all tantalisingly brief:

I would just add the following:

1. is one's personal integrity more or less important than another's personal happiness, in a marriage?

And should they be mutually exclusive?

2. is being true to self (personal integrity) God's wish for his children, or does he want his children to lose their true self in Him?

Can one maintain integrity and yet "lose their life" for God's sake? Are they two different things?

3. does "going inactive" constitute breaking the marriage covenant?

Is it even relevant to it?

4. is the covenant in a sealing between the couple and God or between the couple and the LDS church or only between themselves?

A very good question, which, without taking a closer look at the exact wording used and ritual followed, is difficult to determine. In Catholic belief and practice, the two parties to a marriage actually marry each other.

5. are eternal blessings lost, even temporarily, if a person goes inactive?

In LDS view, or God's view?

6. what exactly do we mean when we say "eternal blessing"?

And what does God mean?

7. is it fair or realistic for one spouse to assume the other spouse will never change?

Unrealistic, certainly. "Fairness" is another issue.

8. what constitutes enduring to the end?

And should it be comparable to running a marathon?

9. Are the Parable of the Lost Sheep and the Parable of the Prodigal Son at odds with "enduring to the end"?

Or does "enduring to the end" refer to something other than stamina?

What about "the last shall be first?"

10. if ordinances have not been formally revoked, are the blessings still valid?

Were they valid in the first place? Does "formally revoking" them actually make them invalid?

Anything else?

Good summary. I agree there were some interesting points raised.

[juliann]

I find it resoundingly ironic that anyone who stands behind a theory of original sin and the nature of man would want to be "true" to themselves.   

You're advocating being false?

Can't address the point, eh? You have just created a major and I mean cataclysmic theological problem for yourself. Which means...dodgeball!

[ave maria]

I find it resoundingly ironic that anyone who stands behind a theory of original sin and the nature of man would want to be "true" to themselves.   

You're advocating being false?

Can't address the point, eh? You have just created a major and I mean cataclysmic theological problem for yourself. Which means...dodgeball!

Not at all, juliann.

I already indicated that by "being true to one's self" I am speaking about personal integrity.

If anyone else set up a false dilemma, that is not of my creation. Yours, perhaps, but not mine.

[juliann]

I already indicated that by "being true to one's self" I am speaking about personal integrity.

If anyone else set up a false dilemma, that is not of my creation.

[ave maria]

I already indicated that by "being true to one's self" I am speaking about personal integrity.

If anyone else set up a false dilemma, that is not of my creation.  Yours, perhaps, but not mine.

Yes....you usually do shift your position at the last minute when you see you are in a corner.

I obviously made my point.

Only in the dream world you inhabit.

[1dc]

from the Pickle jar: no wonder refrigerators need cleaning every now and then. Too many leftovers pushed into all the nooks and crannies.

There's already been more than a few discussions on this thread, all tantalisingly brief:

. . .

Anything else?

- Is the marriage covenant and how both parties being married *may* benefit from it in any way dependent on other covenants being made and kept?

- Why would God say covenants made by people to each other outside of His law are invalid in heaven? And the same for marriages not done by those by those who truly have His authority to bind on earth and in heaven? And what does that say about who is a party to such covenants?

- When speaking of the law in D&C 132, was God always referring to only a portion of His law, or to God's law (all of it)?

- Do prophets suggest people should go "inactive" or do otherwise after they make covenants in the Temple? Is this because they don't care about others and only worry about their personal integrity?

- Are blessing in covenants an absolute guarantee irresponsible of one's relationship with the law which set out rules for how one is worthy to receive the covenant in the first place?

- Does God want us to warn each other without judging, or does he want us to ignore each other in our judgements?

[1dc]

and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

I would agree, charity, except that the statement above doesn't sound much like trying to "acquire a ticket."

Does to me . . living life for oneself instead of God doesn't sound much like trying to "aquire a ticket"

Huh?

I think you are setting up a false dichotomy.

"Losing one's life" tends to preclude pursuit of a ticket.

Not at all . . one can lose one's life (figuratively) by using free agency to choose to follow God instead of the world . . and find eternal life (not figuratively).

I think we're talking about two different things.

Now which of those two Jesus was discussing is another matter.

I believe charity was talking about what Jesus expects and your reference seems to alude to that fact.

Christ said specifically "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me." He certainly wasn't talking about personal integrity or intending daily death in that statement.

He gave the place and cost for one who will pursue a ticket . . it was "Come, Follow Me" with the understanding that there would be daily sacrifices for doing so.

You can complain that you feel LDS are deluded into thinking "that Mormonism in essence revolves around something of a personal marathon to a finish line, and is, in that sense, very "self-" oriented." But you miss the mark of understanding LDS theology if you don't understand that denying oneself to follow Christ is the marathon to which an LDS person subscribes.

IMO, if one can't get oneself into "condition" and onto the right path and endure, then one is not helping themselves or the "whole" team because they are not in a position to do so. That applies whether we want to view the whole team as a husband and wife, family, a neighborhood, a unit within Christ's church, or all of mankind for now and eternally.

[ave maria]

and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

I would agree, charity, except that the statement above doesn't sound much like trying to "acquire a ticket."

Does to me . . living life for oneself instead of God doesn't sound much like trying to "aquire a ticket"

Huh?

I think you are setting up a false dichotomy.

"Losing one's life" tends to preclude pursuit of a ticket.

Not at all . . one can lose one's life (figuratively) by using free agency to choose to follow God instead of the world . . and find eternal life (not figuratively).

I think we're talking about two different things.

Now which of those two Jesus was discussing is another matter.

I believe charity was talking about what Jesus expects and your reference seems to alude to that fact.

Christ said specifically "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me." He certainly wasn't talking about personal integrity or intending daily death in that statement.

It wasn't the passage about "denying one's self" that was about integrity. It was the expression "being true to one's self."

You're confusing two different parts of the discussion.

He gave the place and cost for one who will pursue a ticket . . it was "Come, Follow Me" with the understanding that there would be daily sacrifices for doing so.

You can complain that you feel LDS are deluded into thinking "that Mormonism in essence revolves around something of a personal marathon to a finish line, and is, in that sense, very "self-" oriented."  But you miss the mark of understanding LDS theology if you don't understand that denying oneself to follow Christ is the marathon to which an LDS person subscribes. 

IMO, if one can't get oneself into "condition" and onto the right path and endure, then one is not helping themselves or the "whole" team because they are not in a position to do so.  That applies whether we want to view the whole team as a husband and wife, family, a neighborhood, a unit within Christ's church, or all of mankind for now and eternally.

Again, my observation is that this seems more "self-" oriented than "other-" oriented. While your last sentence could reflect the traditional Christian view of the "Body of Christ," but otherwise, it does appear that LDS practice (if not theology) is more oriented to the individual, rather than the whole, and to the self, rather than the other, and has more to do with completion of a task, rather than the process.

Your mileage might vary.

[charity]

Don't we all know that we are in this together as couples, who without the other cannot be made perfect, as families, as we without them cannot be made perfect. Sounds like a group deal to me.

[ave maria]

Don't we all know that we are in this together as couples, who without the other cannot be made perfect, as families, as we without them cannot be made perfect. Sounds like a group deal to me.

Not if one partner's interests outweigh the interests of the whole.

The question is, would God prefer that the partners in a marriage stay together despite differences in faith, or to separate over them in order to preserve the objective of the individual?